232 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,894 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,659 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Dillon v. United States
560 U.S. 817 (2010) Cited 7,082 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are binding on a court considering a motion for sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller
554 U.S. 570 (2008) Cited 3,466 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding it irrelevant to the constitutionality of D.C.'s "handgun" ban that the law allowed citizens the possession of substitutes, like "long guns"
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,952 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
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"
Cavazos v. Smith
565 U.S. 1 (2011) Cited 2,191 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was "objectively unreasonable"

PEOPLE v. NGUYEN (LAM THANH)

232 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

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 courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are binding on a court considering a motion for sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)

Holding it irrelevant to the constitutionality of D.C.'s "handgun" ban that the law allowed citizens the possession of substitutes, like "long guns"

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

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 "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was "objectively unreasonable"