417 Cited authorities

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003) Cited 48,466 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
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,628 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 16,610 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,594 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,955 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,468 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,234 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Tennard v. Dretke
542 U.S. 274 (2004) Cited 5,497 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"
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"
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (1998) Cited 6,531 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment
Section 187 - Murder
Cal. Pen. Code § 187 Cited 19,794 times
Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."
Section 210 - "Relevant evidence"
Cal. Evid. Code § 210 Cited 2,965 times
Defining relevant evidence
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"

PEOPLE v. SCOTT (ROYCE LYN)

417 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 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 courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"

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 the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."

Defining relevant evidence

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