262 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 22,099 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 69,850 times   16 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 20,794 times   183 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 16,119 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal habeas courts cannot review state court applications of state procedural rules
  5. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 9,640 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 52,830 times   60 Legal Analyses
    Holding that law enforcement officers must warn an individual of certain constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving those rights prior to conducting a custodial interrogation
  7. Illinois v. Gates

    462 U.S. 213 (1983)   Cited 16,213 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding an affidavit "must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause" and that "wholly conclusory" statements about the officer's beliefs are insufficient
  8. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,601 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 8,556 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 18,994 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  11. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 4 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

  12. Rule 8.634 - Transmitting exhibits; augmenting the record in the Supreme Court

    Cal. R. 8.634

    (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