170 Cited authorities

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”
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"
Barker v. Wingo
407 U.S. 514 (1972) Cited 11,577 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right
Doggett v. United States
505 U.S. 647 (1992) Cited 3,662 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding a defendant could not be faulted for post-indictment delay because there was no evidence he was aware of the indictment or the police had been looking for him
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,275 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,607 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Chambers v. Mississippi
410 U.S. 284 (1973) Cited 5,974 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

PEOPLE v. McDOWELL (CHARLES E.)

170 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 “[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 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 defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right

Holding a defendant could not be faulted for post-indictment delay because there was no evidence he was aware of the indictment or the police had been looking for him

Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable