29 Cited authorities

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”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 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 16,617 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”
Alleyne v. United States
570 U.S. 99 (2013) Cited 8,125 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury
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”
Ohio v. Roberts
448 U.S. 56 (1980) Cited 4,632 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act
Jones v. United States
526 U.S. 227 (1999) Cited 1,900 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that "under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment, any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
Wainwright v. Witt
469 U.S. 412 (1985) Cited 3,274 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"
Harris v. United States
536 U.S. 545 (2002) Cited 1,565 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "discharging [i]s sentencing factor[] to be found by the judge, not [an] offense element[]"
Walton v. Arizona
497 U.S. 639 (1990) Cited 1,678 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding state appellate court may properly determine whether evidence supports a properly limited aggravator
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"

PEOPLE v. WINBUSH (GRAYLAND) (To be called and continued to the November 2016 calendar.)

29 Cited authorities

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 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 any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury

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 the question of good-faith effort is a question of reasonableness, and a prosecutor is not required to do a futile act

Holding that juror bias determination is a question of fact, even though "[t]he trial judge is of course applying some kind of legal standard to what he sees and hears"

Holding that "discharging [i]s sentencing factor[] to be found by the judge, not [an] offense element[]"

Holding state appellate court may properly determine whether evidence supports a properly limited aggravator

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"