426 Cited authorities

  1. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 32,353 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence was deficient even though "not all of the additional evidence was favorable to Williams"
  2. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,056 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”
  3. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 14,695 times   81 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"
  4. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,134 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”
  5. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 16,348 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  6. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 8,041 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "counsel chose to abandon their investigation at an unreasonable juncture, making a fully informed decision with respect to sentencing strategy impossible" in light of what the records that they reviewed "actually revealed"
  7. Tennard v. Dretke

    542 U.S. 274 (2004)   Cited 4,666 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"
  8. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 3,911 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
  9. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,626 times   51 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”
  10. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 2,982 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
  11. Rule 609 - Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction

    Fed. R. Evid. 609   Cited 3,450 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a ten-year time limit, absent unusual circumstances, on the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes
  12. Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony

    Fed. R. Evid. 703   Cited 3,032 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
  13. Section 1387.1

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1387.1   Cited 7 times

    (a) Where an offense is a violent felony, as defined in Section 667.5 and the prosecution has had two prior dismissals, as defined in Section 1387, the people shall be permitted one additional opportunity to refile charges where either of the prior dismissals under Section 1387 were due solely to excusable neglect. In no case shall the additional refiling of charges provided under this section be permitted where the conduct of the prosecution amounted to bad faith. (b) As used in this section, "excusable

  14. Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation

    Cal. R. 4.421   Cited 816 times

    Circumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, include the fact that: (1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; (2) The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;