529 Cited authorities

  1. Miller-El v. Cockrell

    537 U.S. 322 (2003)   Cited 39,805 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the granting of a COA is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion
  2. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 132,085 times   173 Legal Analyses
    Holding that deficient performance means that "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness" as measured by "prevailing professional norms"
  3. Williams v. Taylor

    529 U.S. 362 (2000)   Cited 31,362 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding state court decision denying habeas relief was unreasonable, as new mitigation evidence, including "the graphic description of [the defendant's] childhood, filled with abuse and privation, or the reality that he was 'borderline mentally retarded,' might well have influenced the jury's appraisal of his moral culpability"
  4. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 21,807 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”
  5. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,060 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”
  6. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 68,932 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must presume trier of fact resolved all inferences in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record"
  7. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 15,730 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal habeas courts cannot review state court applications of state procedural rules
  8. Wiggins v. Smith

    539 U.S. 510 (2003)   Cited 7,736 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]ounsel's decision not to expand their investigation beyond [the pre-sentence report] fell short of the professional standard that prevailed in 1989"
  9. Bell v. Cone

    535 U.S. 685 (2002)   Cited 7,946 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”
  10. Batson v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 79 (1986)   Cited 13,479 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
  11. Section 922 - Unlawful acts

    18 U.S.C. § 922   Cited 43,173 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce"
  12. Section 1958 - Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire

    18 U.S.C. § 1958   Cited 663 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring imprisonment of not more than 10 years if personal injury or death does not result
  13. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 5,687 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  14. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 4 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or