312 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,395 times 82 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"
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,610 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 15,232 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,794 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,998 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”
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,937 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,490 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985) Cited 9,423 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

PEOPLE v. EDWARDS (ROBERT)

312 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 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"

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 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"

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 failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

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