204 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 22,741 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  2. 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”
  3. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 14,649 times   81 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"
  4. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 14,131 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”
  5. 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
  6. 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”
  7. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 2,978 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
  8. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,117 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
  9. 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"
  10. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 6,324 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  11. Section 127.800 - Section 1.01. Definitions

    Or. Rev. Stat. § 127.800   Cited 14 times

    The following words and phrases, whenever used in ORS 127.800 to 127.897, have the following meanings: (1) "Adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older. (2) "Attending physician" means the physician who has primary responsibility for the care of the patient and treatment of the patient's terminal disease. (3) "Capable" means that in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of the patient's attending physician or consulting physician, psychiatrist or psychologist, a patient has the