Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,646 times 100 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,615 times 17 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,630 times 16 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Estelle v. McGuire
502 U.S. 62 (1991) Cited 19,970 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,292 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 times 50 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,496 times 38 Legal AnalysesHolding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Herrera v. Collins
506 U.S. 390 (1993) Cited 5,530 times 15 Legal AnalysesHolding "the threshold showing for such an assumed right [of actual innocence] would necessarily be extraordinarily high"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,482 times 28 Legal AnalysesHolding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Harmelin v. Michigan
501 U.S. 957 (1991) Cited 4,863 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,418 times 3 Legal AnalysesProhibiting deprivations by “State”
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,503 times 13 Legal AnalysesStating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,313 timesAffording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,114 times 5 Legal AnalysesGuaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,775 times 2 Legal AnalysesStating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 1
Cal. Const. art. I § 1 Cited 1,056 times 1 Legal AnalysesProviding "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"
Rule 601 - Competency
Ky. R. Evid. 601 Cited 59 times(a) General. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute. (b) Minimal qualifications. A person is disqualified to testify as a witness if the trial court determines that he: (1) Lacked the capacity to perceive accurately the matters about which he proposes to testify; (2) Lacks the capacity to recollect facts; (3) Lacks the capacity to express himself so as to be understood, either directly or through an interpreter; or (4) Lacks the capacity