89 Cited authorities

Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (1998) Cited 6,537 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment
Faretta v. California
422 U.S. 806 (1975) Cited 12,558 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
Atkins v. Virginia
536 U.S. 304 (2002) Cited 3,124 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants
Boykin v. Alabama
395 U.S. 238 (1969) Cited 13,233 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here
Cone v. Bell
556 U.S. 449 (2009) Cited 1,802 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"
Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,626 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
Godinez v. Moran
509 U.S. 389 (1993) Cited 2,287 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas
Indiana v. Edwards
554 U.S. 164 (2008) Cited 1,139 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself
Penry v. Lynaugh
492 U.S. 302 (1989) Cited 2,079 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that Teague principles apply to capital sentencing
Eddings v. Oklahoma
455 U.S. 104 (1982) Cited 2,310 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that a sentencing court cannot "refuse to consider, as a matter of law , any relevant mitigating evidence"
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,776 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

PEOPLE v. DANIELS (DAVID SCOTT)

89 Cited authorities

Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here

Holding that " claim is procedurally barred when it has not been fairly presented to the state courts for their initial consideration"

Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

Holding that the trial competency standard applies to guilty pleas

Holding that the court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by appointing counsel against defendant's objection where defendant was competent to stand trial but not competent to conduct trial proceedings by himself

Holding that Teague principles apply to capital sentencing

Holding that a sentencing court cannot "refuse to consider, as a matter of law , any relevant mitigating evidence"

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"