121 Cited authorities

Harrington v. Richter
562 U.S. 86 (2011) Cited 26,311 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,640 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”
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,963 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,473 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,278 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,287 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,643 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,279 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "
Boyde v. California
494 U.S. 370 (1990) Cited 2,321 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)
Penry v. Lynaugh
492 U.S. 302 (1989) Cited 2,078 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that Teague principles apply to capital sentencing

PEOPLE v. LIVINGSTON (DAVID J.)

121 Cited authorities

Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

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 a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions

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

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)

Holding that Teague principles apply to capital sentencing