208 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,075 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”
  2. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,141 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”
  3. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 70,285 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court must presume trier of fact resolved all inferences in favor of the prosecution "even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record"
  4. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 16,367 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  5. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 9,713 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"
  6. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,630 times   51 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”
  7. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 33,300 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution"
  8. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 19,150 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  9. Santosky v. Kramer

    455 U.S. 745 (1982)   Cited 7,313 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"
  10. Kimmelman v. Morrison

    477 U.S. 365 (1986)   Cited 4,966 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant must show that "the challenged action was not sound strategy"
  11. Section 2304 - Human rights and security assistance

    22 U.S.C. § 2304   Cited 11 times
    Prohibiting security assistance to countries that practice cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment
  12. Rule 4.420 - Selection of term of imprisonment

    Cal. R. 4.420   Cited 408 times

    (a) When a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, or the execution of a sentence of imprisonment is ordered suspended, the sentencing judge must select the upper, middle, or lower term on each count for which the defendant has been convicted, as provided in section 1170(b) and these rules. (b) In exercising his or her discretion in selecting one of the three authorized terms of imprisonment referred to in section 1170(b), the sentencing judge may consider circumstances in aggravation or mitigation