204 Cited authorities

Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (2003) Cited 48,528 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 26,650 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 16,617 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 15,242 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
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”
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,497 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,490 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,558 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Miller-El v. Dretke
545 U.S. 231 (2005) Cited 2,699 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike
Hernandez v. New York
500 U.S. 352 (1991) Cited 3,862 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that evaluation of a prosecutor's credibility "lies `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'"

PEOPLE v. SMITH

204 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 the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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 the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

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

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike

Holding that evaluation of a prosecutor's credibility "lies `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'"