468 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,554 times 176 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"
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,391 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,609 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,552 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"
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cited 8,677 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"
Graham v. Florida
560 U.S. 48 (2010) Cited 4,397 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,228 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
Tennard v. Dretke
542 U.S. 274 (2004) Cited 5,493 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,793 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"
Wolff v. McDonnell
418 U.S. 539 (1974) Cited 19,214 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred, but that a civil rights claim that would affect the duration of incarceration is foreclosed by Preiser
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,060 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 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,018 times 11 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,774 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 17
Cal. Const. art. I § 17 Cited 1,406 times
Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment
Section 2929.03 - Imposition of sentence for aggravated murder
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.03 Cited 1,034 times 4 Legal Analyses
Describing trial jury's role in determining the sentence for a capital defendant
Section 9711 - Sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree
42 Pa. C.S. § 9711 Cited 740 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 3591 - Sentence of death
18 U.S.C. § 3591 Cited 538 times 8 Legal Analyses
Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"
Section 99-19-101 - Jury to determine punishment in capital cases in separate sentencing proceeding; aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be considered
Miss. Code § 99-19-101 Cited 386 times 7 Legal Analyses
Listing kidnaping in a series of possible aggravating circumstances

PEOPLE v. SANDOVAL (RAMON JR.)

468 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 the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

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 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 "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

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

Holding that petitioner was entitled to a COA on his Penry claim where his evidence of low IQ and impaired intellectual functioning had "mitigating dimension beyond the impact it has on the individual's ability to act deliberately"

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 declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred, but that a civil rights claim that would affect the duration of incarceration is foreclosed by Preiser

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"

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment

Describing trial jury's role in determining the sentence for a capital defendant

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

Listing mitigating factors to be considered "in determining whether a sentence of death is to be imposed"

Listing kidnaping in a series of possible aggravating circumstances