Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 times 100 Legal AnalysesHolding 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 AnalysesHolding 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”
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,293 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 times 50 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,494 times 28 Legal AnalysesHolding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,285 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,572 times 21 Legal AnalysesHolding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,627 times 31 Legal AnalysesHolding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
Richardson v. Marsh
481 U.S. 200 (1987) Cited 3,780 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,928 times 26 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation
Cal. R. 4.421 Cited 2,345 timesCircumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, include the fact that: (1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; (2) The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;