310 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,894 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"
Williams v. Taylor
529 U.S. 362 (2000) Cited 37,794 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation
United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,390 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 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 16,617 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 77,659 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 19,985 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,486 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (1992) Cited 17,123 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to determine whether the force used by a prison official amounts to a constitutional violation, "the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm"
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"
Section 924 - Penalties
18 U.S.C. § 924 Cited 65,631 times 186 Legal Analyses
Holding that conviction for eluding police, under Maine statute which provides that "[w]hoever, after being requested or signaled to stop, attempts to elude a law enforcement officer by driving a vehicle at a reckless rate of speed which results in a high-speed chase between the operator's vehicle and any law enforcement vehicle using a blue light and siren is guilty" of a felony-level crime, involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,314 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,117 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,777 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 1,409 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 1
Cal. Const. art. I § 1 Cited 1,058 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"
Section 3315 - [Operative until 7/1/2024] Serious Rule Violations
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3315 Cited 112 times
Allowing hearing officer to deny requests for witnesses
Section 2280 - General
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2280 Cited 22 times
Listing section 3041 as a statutory reference

PEOPLE v. JACKSON (JONATHAN KEITH)

310 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 that counsel's performance was deficient when their investigation failed to uncover "extensive records" filled with mitigation evidence concerning the defendant's family history, education, mental health, and rehabilitation

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 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, to determine whether the force used by a prison official amounts to a constitutional violation, "the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm"

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"

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

Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

Allowing hearing officer to deny requests for witnesses

Listing section 3041 as a statutory reference