165 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,647 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”
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,239 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,293 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 4,999 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 23,483 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Miller-El v. Dretke
545 U.S. 231 (2005) Cited 2,699 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,568 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
Jones v. United States
526 U.S. 227 (1999) Cited 1,900 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
Oregon v. Ice
555 U.S. 160 (2009) Cited 1,251 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,444 times 3 Legal Analyses
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"
Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
U.S. Const. amend. VI Cited 28,162 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 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,775 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

PEOPLE v. McKINZIE (KENNETH)

165 Cited authorities

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 Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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"

Holding that a prosecutor “would have cleared up any misunderstanding by asking further questions” if he truly considered a race-neutral characteristic grounds for a peremptory strike

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences

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"

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

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