184 Cited authorities

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003) Cited 48,422 times 14 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
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,360 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,619 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 16,609 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”
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,230 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,998 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”
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,458 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,272 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Atkins v. Virginia
536 U.S. 304 (2002) Cited 3,118 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants
Section 1191.1 - Right to attend sentencing proceedings
Cal. Pen. Code § 1191.1 Cited 64 times
Permitting victim to appear and reasonably present views concerning the crime, the person responsible, and the need for restitution

PEOPLE v. PEARSON (MICHAEL N.)

184 Cited authorities

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

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 the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

Permitting victim to appear and reasonably present views concerning the crime, the person responsible, and the need for restitution