136 Cited authorities

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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,615 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”
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
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
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”
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"
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,611 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Wainwright v. Witt
469 U.S. 412 (1985) Cited 3,273 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"
Boyde v. California
494 U.S. 370 (1990) Cited 2,322 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)
Lockett v. Ohio
438 U.S. 586 (1978) Cited 3,737 times 53 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Ohio death penalty statute, which required imposition of the death penalty once a defendant was found guilty of aggravated murder with at least one of seven specified aggravating factors, unless one of three specified mitigating factors was established by a preponderance of the evidence, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the statute limited the range of mitigating factors that the sentencer could consider

PEOPLE v. JONES (WILLIAM ALFRED)

136 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 a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

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 error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"

Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)