121 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,093 times   176 Legal Analyses
    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"
  2. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,326 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  3. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,583 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”
  4. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,599 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”
  5. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,874 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  6. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,289 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"
  7. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,991 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”
  8. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,477 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
  9. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,424 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  10. Santosky v. Kramer

    455 U.S. 745 (1982)   Cited 8,703 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]efore a State may sever ... the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence"
  11. Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

    U.S. Const. amend. VI   Cited 27,960 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
  12. Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

    U.S. Const. amend. V   Cited 19,178 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment
  13. Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 11,333 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting deprivations by “State”
  14. Section Amendment VIII - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases

    U.S. Const. amend. VIII   Cited 9,060 times
    Prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishments"
  15. Section 190.1 - Separate phases for death penalty case

    Cal. Pen. Code § 190.1   Cited 320 times
    Providing for trial of a prior murder conviction special circumstance allegation only after a guilty verdict has been reached on the charged crimes
  16. Rule 8.224 - Transmitting exhibits

    Cal. R. 8.224   Cited 245 times

    (a)Notice of designation (1) Within 10 days after the last respondent's brief is filed or could be filed under rule 8.220, a party wanting the reviewing court to consider any original exhibits that were admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged but that were not copied in the clerk's transcript under rule 8.122 or the appendix under rule 8.124 must serve and file a notice in superior court designating such exhibits. (2) Within 10 days after a notice under (1) is served, any other party wanting the