402 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,470 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 25,353 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,616 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 17,380 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 16,608 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,515 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,936 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (1967) Cited 77,671 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that when counsel determines that a criminal defendant's case is "wholly frivolous," counsel must "so advise the court and request permission to withdraw"
Brecht v. Abrahamson
507 U.S. 619 (1993) Cited 11,795 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a court has "never squarely addressed the issue, and ha at most assumed" something in a prior decision, it is "free to address the issue on the merits"
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,220 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 203,944 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 13
Cal. Const. art. VI § 13 Cited 4,506 times
Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,310 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,773 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 1,403 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 11
Cal. Const. art. VI § 11 Cited 304 times
Authorizing the taking of such evidence

PEOPLE v. BANKS

402 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 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 courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

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

Holding that when counsel determines that a criminal defendant's case is "wholly frivolous," counsel must "so advise the court and request permission to withdraw"

Holding that when a court has "never squarely addressed the issue, and ha at most assumed" something in a prior decision, it is "free to address the issue on the merits"

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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"

Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

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

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

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

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Authorizing the taking of such evidence