176 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,386 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
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”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,417 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
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”
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,242 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,805 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
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”
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,951 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,490 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Warden v. Payton
544 U.S. 133 (2005) Cited 2,291 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding the Ninth Circuit "made this ... assumption, and it was in error to do so"
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,480 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 3
Cal. Const. art. III § 3 Cited 403 times
Guaranteeing the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches

PEOPLE v. RANGEL (PEDRO)

176 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

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 the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

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 the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

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

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

Holding the Ninth Circuit "made this ... assumption, and it was in error to do so"

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Guaranteeing the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches