United States v. Booker

Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory

Apprendi v. New Jersey

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

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

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”

Miranda v. Arizona

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

Cunningham v. California

Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

Ring v. Arizona

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”

Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

Neder v. United States

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Chapman v. California

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Section 16

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

Section 127.800 - Section 1.01. Definitions