184 Cited authorities

  1. Miller-El v. Cockrell

    537 U.S. 322 (2003)   Cited 44,520 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government's exclusion of 10 out of 14, or 91%, of Black prospective jurors—along with the state's unreliable justifications—showed purposeful discrimination
  2. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 24,461 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  3. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 25,425 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”
  4. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,308 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”
  5. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 14,557 times   59 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
  6. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,186 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"
  7. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,856 times   51 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”
  8. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 22,359 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  9. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 6,888 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  10. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,005 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
  11. Section 1191.1 - Right to attend sentencing proceedings

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1191.1   Cited 62 times
    Permitting victim to appear and reasonably present views concerning the crime, the person responsible, and the need for restitution