330 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,554 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"
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,618 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”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,391 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,552 times 16 Legal Analyses
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"
Yarborough v. Alvarado
541 U.S. 652 (2004) Cited 7,976 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that habeas relief from a state court judgment is appropriate only when "the necessity to apply [an] earlier rule [set forth by the Supreme Court is] beyond doubt"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,228 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,793 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Arizona v. Gant
556 U.S. 332 (2009) Cited 3,879 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest is one conducted "as long as the administrative processes incident to the arrest and custody have not been completed."
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,117 times 73 Legal Analyses
Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,997 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”
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,393 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting deprivations by “State”
Section 848 - Continuing criminal enterprise
21 U.S.C. § 848 Cited 3,763 times 30 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 2C:11-3 - Murder
N.J. Stat. § 2C:11-3 Cited 2,363 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring courts to either sentence juvenile homicide offenders to 30 years without parole or to make them eligible for parole after 30 years
Section 28
Cal. Const. art. I § 28 Cited 2,118 times
Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 37.071 - Procedure In Capital Case
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071 Cited 1,041 times 7 Legal Analyses
Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence
Section 9711 - Sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree
42 Pa. C.S. § 9711 Cited 740 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the victim's statements about the defendant that were communicated to the defendant were not hearsay when the statements were offered to prove the defendant's motive for killing the victim
Section 2929.05 - Supreme court review upon appeal of sentence of death
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 Cited 480 times
Directing the reviewing court to "independently weigh all facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine . . . whether the sentence of death is appropriate"
Section 13A-5-53 - Appellate review of death sentence; scope; remand; specific determinations to be made by court; authority of court following review
Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 Cited 432 times
Requiring the appellate court to determine whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases

PEOPLE v. KOPATZ (KIM RAYMOND)

330 Cited authorities

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"

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”

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

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"

Holding that habeas relief from a state court judgment is appropriate only when "the necessity to apply [an] earlier rule [set forth by the Supreme Court is] beyond doubt"

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

Holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest is one conducted "as long as the administrative processes incident to the arrest and custody have not been completed."

Holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop

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”

Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Requiring courts to either sentence juvenile homicide offenders to 30 years without parole or to make them eligible for parole after 30 years

Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence

Holding that the victim's statements about the defendant that were communicated to the defendant were not hearsay when the statements were offered to prove the defendant's motive for killing the victim

Directing the reviewing court to "independently weigh all facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine . . . whether the sentence of death is appropriate"

Requiring the appellate court to determine whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases