322 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,593 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,360 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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 16,609 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 19,947 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 60,240 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
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,998 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 4,937 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Herrera v. Collins
506 U.S. 390 (1993) Cited 5,527 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding "the threshold showing for such an assumed right [of actual innocence] would necessarily be extraordinarily high"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,581 times 251 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
U.S. Const. amend. VI Cited 28,091 times 1 Legal Analyses
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
U.S. Const. amend. V Cited 19,267 times 5 Legal Analyses
Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,394 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting deprivations by “State”
Section Amendment VIII - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
U.S. Const. amend. VIII Cited 9,113 times
Prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,118 times
Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,774 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,406 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 190 - Punishment
Cal. Pen. Code § 190 Cited 1,314 times
Concerning homicide

PEOPLE v. LINTON (DANIEL A.)

322 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

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 “[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 the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

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 "the threshold showing for such an assumed right [of actual innocence] would necessarily be extraordinarily high"

Adopting the Daubert standard

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

Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

Prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments"

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

Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Concerning homicide