§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. JONES (WILLIAM ALFRED)

Appellant's Opening Brief

423 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,646 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”

  2. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,970 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

  3. Albright v. Oliver

    510 U.S. 266 (1994)   Cited 12,396 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution

  4. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,290 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

  5. 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”

  6. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,496 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  7. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 15,738 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

  8. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,482 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  9. Santosky v. Kramer

    455 U.S. 745 (1982)   Cited 8,738 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"

  10. Atkins v. Virginia

    536 U.S. 304 (2002)   Cited 3,124 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

  11. Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 11,418 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

  12. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,313 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  13. Section 7

    Cal. Const. art. I § 7   Cited 2,114 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

  14. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,775 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  15. Section 17

    Cal. Const. art. I § 17   Cited 1,409 times
    Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

  16. Section 2929.04 - Death penalty or imprisonment - aggravating and mitigating factors

    Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.04   Cited 1,157 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the jury is to weigh against the aggravating circumstances, inter alia, "the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history, character, and background of the offender"

  17. Section 37.071 - Procedure In Capital Case

    Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071   Cited 1,041 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence

  18. Section 190.3 - Death penalty for defendant found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstance

    Cal. Pen. Code § 190.3   Cited 821 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Providing that, "[i]n determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account" any relevant listed factors

  19. Section 9711 - Sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree

    42 Pa. C.S. § 9711   Cited 740 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the victim's statements about the defendant that were communicated to the defendant were not hearsay when the statements were offered to prove the defendant's motive for killing the victim

  20. Section 200.030 - Degrees of murder; penalties

    Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.030   Cited 588 times
    Outlining willful, deliberate, and premediated killing and felony murder as theories of first-degree murder