148 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,884 times 101 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 16,685 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 61,154 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,430 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 5,042 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 3,591 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,789 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 2,036 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal courts may not use "debatable inferences" to set aside a state court's factual conclusion
Purkett v. Elem
514 U.S. 765 (1995) Cited 3,049 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 2,343 times 21 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 officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

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 that federal courts may not use "debatable inferences" to set aside a state court's factual conclusion

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

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