330 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 159,583 times 179 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 26,702 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 17,491 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,879 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 8,055 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 60,522 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,833 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 3,931 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourth Amendment does not permit officers to search every vehicle incident to arrest
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968) Cited 38,314 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 5,011 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 11,492 times 3 Legal Analyses
Containing both a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause
Section 848 - Continuing criminal enterprise
21 U.S.C. § 848 Cited 4,066 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 3,320 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 2,393 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 2,130 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 2,130 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 1,047 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 743 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 482 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 437 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 Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

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 officers must inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence against them, and that they are entitled to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, prior to the interrogation

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 the Fourth Amendment does not permit officers to search every vehicle incident to arrest

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”

Containing both a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause

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