389 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 32,353 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence was deficient even though "not all of the additional evidence was favorable to Williams"
  2. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 22,824 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  3. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,056 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”
  4. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,134 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”
  5. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 70,205 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must presume trier of fact resolved all inferences in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record"
  6. Estelle v. Gamble

    429 U.S. 97 (1976)   Cited 43,539 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the proper forum for challenging a medical judgment was under state medical malpractice law
  7. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 8,041 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "counsel chose to abandon their investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to sentencing strategy impossible" in light of what the records that they reviewed "actually revealed"
  8. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,626 times   51 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”
  9. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 6,186 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
  10. Rompilla v. Beard

    545 U.S. 374 (2005)   Cited 2,627 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to investigate and discover mitigating evidence at the sentencing stage was ineffective assistance of counsel because "mitigating evidence, taken as a whole, might well have influenced the jury’s appraisal" of the defendant’s culpability and therefore "the likelihood of a different result if the evidence had gone in is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome actually reached at sentencing"