189 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,359 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,618 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”
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,218 times 224 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Yarborough v. Alvarado
541 U.S. 652 (2004) Cited 7,976 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that habeas relief from a state court judgment is appropriate only when "the necessity to apply [an] earlier rule [set forth by the Supreme Court is] beyond doubt"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,228 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
Whren v. United States
517 U.S. 806 (1996) Cited 8,587 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"
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 4,997 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 23,457 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Section 11
Cal. Const. art. VI § 11 Cited 304 times
Authorizing the taking of such evidence

PEOPLE v. LINTON (DANIEL A.)

189 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 “[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 trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding that habeas relief from a state court judgment is appropriate only when "the necessity to apply [an] earlier rule [set forth by the Supreme Court is] beyond doubt"

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

Holding that, upon observing traffic violation, officer may stop vehicle regardless of his subjective motivations, "as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action"

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

Authorizing the taking of such evidence