148 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,617 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”
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,313 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,246 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 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”
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,500 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,494 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Rice v. Collins
546 U.S. 333 (2006) Cited 1,953 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the state court's decision was not unreasonable because the record did not "compel the conclusion that the trial court had no permissible alternative" than to decide otherwise
Purkett v. Elem
514 U.S. 765 (1995) Cited 3,011 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a Court of Appeals erred by combining Batson’s second and third steps
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,290 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

PEOPLE v. PARKER (GERALD)

148 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 “[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 statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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 death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

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

Holding the state court's decision was not unreasonable because the record did not "compel the conclusion that the trial court had no permissible alternative" than to decide otherwise

Holding a Court of Appeals erred by combining Batson’s second and third steps

Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”