Strickland v. Washington

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Apprendi v. New Jersey

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”

Crawford v. Washington

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"

Blakely v. Washington

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

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

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

Wiggins v. Smith

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

Brecht v. Abrahamson

Holding that when a court has "never squarely addressed the issue, and ha at most assumed" something in a prior decision, it is "free to address the issue on the merits"

Davis v. Washington

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"

Cunningham v. California

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"

Section 15

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

Section 7

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Section 16

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

Section 17

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Section 1673 - Restriction on garnishment

Codifying section 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, cross-referenced by 28 U.S.C. § 3002

Section 3097 - Inmate Restitution Fine and Direct Order Collections

Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae