276 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,617 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 16,608 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 77,539 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 19,941 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,251 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,997 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 3,489 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,455 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 12,528 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
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 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,774 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,406 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

PEOPLE v. BECERRA (FRANK KALIL)

276 Cited authorities

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 the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

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 it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment