Strickland v. Washington

Holding that prejudice for IAC claims requires showing "that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different"

Williams v. Taylor

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

Apprendi v. New Jersey

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

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

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

Estelle v. Gamble

Holding that the proper forum for challenging a medical judgment was under state medical malpractice law

Wiggins v. Smith

Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence

Hudson v. McMillian

Holding that, to determine whether the force used by a prison official amounts to a constitutional violation, "the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm"

Ring v. Arizona

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”

United States v. Bagley

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

Providing "private property" shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation"

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

Prohibiting states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

Section 19.02 - Murder

Defining sudden passion

Section 848 - Continuing criminal enterprise

Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"

Section 15

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Section 7

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Section 9 - Powers Denied to Congress

Prohibiting Congress

Section 921.141 - Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence

Recognizing "the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance" as a mitigating factor

Section 17

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Section 3177 - Family Visiting (Overnight)

Section 3349 - Method of Execution. [Repealed]