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”
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,981 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
528 U.S. 562 (2000) Cited 6,369 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding that a class of one could challenge different treatment under the Equal Protection Clause where treatment was alleged to be "irrational and wholly arbitrary"
Duncan v. Henry
513 U.S. 364 (1995) Cited 8,043 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding a claim raised in a state-court proceeding must be presented to that court as a federal constitutional claim or it is not exhausted for federal habeas corpus purposes
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”
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,497 times 38 Legal AnalysesHolding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,490 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 7,283 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,480 times 341 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 182 - Conspiracy
Cal. Pen. Code § 182 Cited 3,044 timesRequiring proof of the commission of an overt act by one or more parties in furtherance of the conspiracy
Section 14:30 - First degree murder
La. Stat. tit. 14 § 30 Cited 1,476 timesA. First degree murder is the killing of a human being: (1) When the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, aggravated arson, aggravated or first degree rape, forcible or second degree rape, aggravated burglary, armed robbery, assault by drive-by shooting, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, simple robbery, terrorism, cruelty to
Section 520 - Claim that person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing
Cal. Evid. Code § 520 Cited 78 timesThe party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of proof on that issue. Ca. Evid. Code § 520 Enacted by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299.