124 Cited authorities

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”
Bell v. Cone
535 U.S. 685 (2002) Cited 9,828 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”
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,242 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 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”
Lockhart v. Fretwell
506 U.S. 364 (1993) Cited 6,851 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,951 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,490 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,293 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. VI § 13 Cited 4,516 times
Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,314 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

PEOPLE v. DELGADO (ANTHONY GILBERT)

124 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 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”

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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 petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to sentencing enhancement

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”