585 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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 17,394 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 16,609 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,568 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 19,947 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Brecht v. Abrahamson
507 U.S. 619 (1993) Cited 11,804 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"
House v. Warden
547 U.S. 518 (2006) Cited 5,401 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in order to pass through the actual-innocence gateway, a petitioner must "demonstrate that more likely than not, in light of the new evidence, no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Duncan v. Henry
513 U.S. 364 (1995) Cited 8,024 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding a claim raised in a state-court proceeding must be presented to that court as a federal constitutional claim or it is not exhausted for federal habeas corpus purposes
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"
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,252 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,108 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,774 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 1,406 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 3591 - Sentence of death
18 U.S.C. § 3591 Cited 538 times 8 Legal Analyses
Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"
Section 647 - Deemed excepted to
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 647 Cited 223 times
All of the following are deemed excepted to: the verdict of the jury; the final decision in an action or proceeding; an interlocutory order or decision, finally determining the rights of the parties, or some of them; an order or decision from which an appeal may be taken; an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer, allowing or refusing to allow an amendment to a pleading, striking out or refusing to strike out a pleading or a portion thereof, or refusing a continuance; an order made upon ex parte
Rule 4.420 - Selection of term of imprisonment for offense
Cal. R. 4.420 Cited 874 times
(a) When a judgment of imprisonment is imposed, or the execution of a judgment of imprisonment is ordered suspended, the sentencing judge must, in their sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b). (b) The court may only choose an upper term when (1) there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of an upper term, and (2) the facts underlying those circumstances have been (i) stipulated

PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

585 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 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 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, in order to pass through the actual-innocence gateway, a petitioner must "demonstrate that more likely than not, in light of the new evidence, no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Holding a claim raised in a state-court proceeding must be presented to that court as a federal constitutional claim or it is not exhausted for federal habeas corpus purposes

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 the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

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

Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"