Harrington v. Richter

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

Strickland v. Washington

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"

United States v. Booker

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Apprendi v. New Jersey

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

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

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"

Cunningham v. California

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

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”

Chapman v. California

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

Arizona v. Fulminante

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

Section 29