414 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 22,842 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,075 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”
  3. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 14,739 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
  4. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 70,285 times   17 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. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 8,057 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "counsel chose to abandon their investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to sentencing strategy impossible" in light of what the records that they reviewed "actually revealed"
  6. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 52,825 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suspect "must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation"
  7. Tennard v. Dretke

    542 U.S. 274 (2004)   Cited 4,673 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"
  8. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 3,917 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
  9. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,630 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”
  10. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech

    528 U.S. 562 (2000)   Cited 5,188 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a class of one could challenge different treatment under the Equal Protection Clause where treatment was alleged to be "irrational and wholly arbitrary"
  11. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 11 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