396 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 21,785 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”
  2. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 14,391 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an absent witness's statements are admissible under the Confrontation Clause "only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant [] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine"
  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,060 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”
  4. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 68,888 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must presume trier of fact resolved all inferences in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record"
  5. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 15,717 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal habeas courts cannot review state court applications of state procedural rules
  6. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,533 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”
  7. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 5,993 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a reasonable probability is shown "when the government’s evidentiary suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial" (cleaned up)
  8. Wolff v. McDonnell

    418 U.S. 539 (1974)   Cited 15,809 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred, but that a civil rights claim that would affect the duration of incarceration is foreclosed by Preiser
  9. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,036 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
  10. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 2,673 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed" because "[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood"
  11. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 4 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or