212 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 159,625 times 179 Legal Analyses
Holding that to establish ineffective assistance prejudice a petitioner "must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different," and " reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome"
Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,705 times 101 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,893 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"
Wiggins v. Smith
539 U.S. 510 (2003) Cited 9,531 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's performance was deficient when they failed to expand their investigation into the defendant's life history "after having acquired only rudimentary knowledge of his history from a narrow set of sources," especially when those sources indicated the existence of helpful mitigation evidence
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 5,011 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 23,571 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Atkins v. Virginia
536 U.S. 304 (2002) Cited 3,131 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,319 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review
Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986) Cited 6,600 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"
Harmelin v. Michigan
501 U.S. 957 (1991) Cited 4,880 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,500 times 3 Legal Analyses
Containing both a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause
Section 848 - Continuing criminal enterprise
21 U.S.C. § 848 Cited 4,078 times 30 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,321 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 2C:11-3 - Murder
N.J. Stat. § 2C:11-3 Cited 2,393 times 1 Legal Analyses
Requiring courts to either sentence juvenile homicide offenders to 30 years without parole or to make them eligible for parole after 30 years
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,130 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 37.071 - Procedure In Capital Case
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071 Cited 1,047 times 7 Legal Analyses
Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence
Section 190.3 - Death penalty for defendant found guilty of first degree murder with special circumstance
Cal. Pen. Code § 190.3 Cited 825 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that, "[i]n determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account" any relevant listed factors
Section 9711 - Sentencing procedure for murder of the first degree
42 Pa. C.S. § 9711 Cited 743 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 2929.05 - Supreme court review upon appeal of sentence of death
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.05 Cited 482 times
Directing the reviewing court to "independently weigh all facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine . . . whether the sentence of death is appropriate"
Section 13A-5-53 - Appellate review of death sentence; scope; remand; specific determinations to be made by court; authority of court following review
Ala. Code § 13A-5-53 Cited 437 times
Requiring the appellate court to determine whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases

PEOPLE v. ADAMS

212 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 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 “[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 it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

Holding that admission of an involuntary statement is subject to harmless-error review

Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence

Containing both a Due Process Clause and an Equal Protection Clause

Recognizing the court's authority in certain situations to "impose a sentence, other than death, authorized by law"

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

Requiring courts to either sentence juvenile homicide offenders to 30 years without parole or to make them eligible for parole after 30 years

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Identifying "special issues" to be considered by the sentencer when determining the appropriate sentence

Providing that, "[i]n determining the penalty, the trier of fact shall take into account" any relevant listed factors

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

Directing the reviewing court to "independently weigh all facts and other evidence disclosed in the record in the case and consider the offense and the offender to determine . . . whether the sentence of death is appropriate"

Requiring the appellate court to determine whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases