310 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,383 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,649 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,616 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”
Illinois v. Gates
462 U.S. 213 (1983) Cited 18,960 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,303 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,293 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Mayle v. Felix
545 U.S. 644 (2005) Cited 4,594 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that amendments to habeas petitions relate back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) where they are “tied to a common core of operative facts” and citing with approval Mandacina v. United States, 328 F.3d 995, 999–1000 (8th Cir.2003) (amended petition alleging failure to disclose a particular report relates back to date of original petition generally alleging Brady violation)
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”
Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
560 U.S. 370 (2010) Cited 2,854 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,488 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Section 2241 - Power to grant writ
28 U.S.C. § 2241 Cited 80,401 times 55 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,313 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,117 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,775 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,409 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 3591 - Sentence of death
18 U.S.C. § 3591 Cited 539 times 8 Legal Analyses
Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"
Section 24
Cal. Const. art. I § 24 Cited 193 times
Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"

PEOPLE v. SPENCER

310 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that federal courts can "deny writs of habeas corpus under § 2254 by engaging in de novo review when it is unclear whether AEDPA deference applies"

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"

Making explicit that "[r]ights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution"