262 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,056 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. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 70,205 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"
  3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 21,068 times   195 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Fed. R. Evid. 702 authorizes a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony [of an expert] is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue"
  4. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 16,348 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 9,706 times   21 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. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 52,767 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suspect "must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation"
  7. Illinois v. Gates

    462 U.S. 213 (1983)   Cited 16,298 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, when making a warrantless arrest, officers "may rely upon information received through an informant . . . so long as the informant's statement is reasonably corroborated
  8. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,626 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”
  9. United States v. Leon

    468 U.S. 897 (1984)   Cited 8,635 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Holding that suppression is unwarranted when officers have acted in "good faith" in relying on a defective search warrant
  10. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 19,088 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  11. Rule 8.634 - Transmitting exhibits; augmenting the record in the Supreme Court

    Cal. R. 8.634   Cited 8 times

    (a) Application Except as provided in (b), rule 8.224 governs the transmission of exhibits to the Supreme Court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2004.) (b)Time to file notice of designation No party may file a notice designating exhibits under rule 8.224(a) until the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court notifies the parties of the time and place of oral argument. (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective

  12. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 7 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or