207 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 25,425 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 16,308 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 73,855 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 18,229 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 10,454 times   24 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. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,186 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 4,856 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”
  8. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 37,583 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the suppression of material evidence by the prosecution violates due process
  9. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 22,359 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  10. Santosky v. Kramer

    455 U.S. 745 (1982)   Cited 7,978 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 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 for offense

    Cal. R. 4.420   Cited 807 times

    (a) When a judgment of imprisonment is imposed, or the execution of a judgment of imprisonment is ordered suspended, the sentencing judge must, in their sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b). (b) The court may only choose an upper term when (1) there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of an upper term, and (2) the facts underlying those circumstances have been (i) stipulated