264 Cited authorities

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (2005) Cited 25,390 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,617 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”
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,313 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
Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (1986) Cited 15,246 times 61 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,293 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 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”
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,494 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Santosky v. Kramer
455 U.S. 745 (1982) Cited 8,741 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"
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,295 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,528 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Section 231.5 - Peremptory challenge used to remove juror on basis of bias because of race, color, religion, etc.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 231.5 Cited 21 times
Requiring "notification of the prohibition against sexual harassment" and "available remedies"

PEOPLE v. DUFF

264 Cited authorities

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

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 “[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”

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

Holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to the use of peremptory strikes

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"

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”

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

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"

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Requiring "notification of the prohibition against sexual harassment" and "available remedies"