93 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 24,760 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 25,950 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”
  3. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,416 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”
  4. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,907 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”
  5. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 22,783 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  6. Gregg v. Georgia

    428 U.S. 153 (1976)   Cited 6,352 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
  7. Payne v. Tennessee

    501 U.S. 808 (1991)   Cited 2,536 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
  8. Pulley v. Harris

    465 U.S. 37 (1984)   Cited 3,340 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"
  9. Baze v. Rees

    553 U.S. 35 (2008)   Cited 983 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the Eighth Amendment context that the government's choice of drug can violate the Constitution
  10. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,724 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied