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”

Coleman v. Thompson

Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

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”

Harris v. Reed

Holding that a federal court on habeas review may evaluate the merits of a claim where the last state court rendering a judgment on that claim did not "clearly and expressly" state that the judgment rested solely on independent state grounds

Chapman v. California

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

Giglio v. United States

Holding that prosecution must disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses where witness's credibility is "an important issue in the case"

United States v. Agurs

Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"

Banks v. Dretke

Holding that suppression of prosecution witness's police-informant status violated Brady

Pulley v. Harris

Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"

Wainwright v. Witt

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"

Section 3177 - [Operative 7/1/2024] Family Visiting (Overnight)