149 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,676 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”
  2. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,628 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”
  3. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,296 times   4 Legal Analyses
    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"
  4. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 5,004 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”
  5. Skilling v. U.S.

    561 U.S. 358 (2010)   Cited 1,657 times   57 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Hedgpeth's harmless-error approach applies on direct appeal
  6. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,882 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied
  7. Patton v. Yount

    467 U.S. 1025 (1984)   Cited 1,577 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court's “particularly extensive” 10-day voir dire ensured the jury's impartiality
  8. United States v. Hasting

    461 U.S. 499 (1983)   Cited 1,616 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Chapman mandates harmless error analysis of Griffin error
  9. Tuilaepa v. California

    512 U.S. 967 (1994)   Cited 979 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the State's future dangerousness element is not unconstitutionally vague
  10. Ross v. Oklahoma

    487 U.S. 81 (1988)   Cited 1,218 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the `right' to peremptory challenges is `denied or impaired' only if the defendant does not receive that which state law provides"
  11. Section 187 - Murder

    Cal. Pen. Code § 187   Cited 19,976 times
    Defining murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought."
  12. Section 288 - Lewd or lascivious act upon child under age of 14 years

    Cal. Pen. Code § 288   Cited 9,331 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining crime of conviction
  13. Section 190.2 - Penalty for defendant found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstance

    Cal. Pen. Code § 190.2   Cited 5,991 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Prescribing penalty of death or LWOP for special circumstance murder
  14. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,319 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
  15. Section 207 - Kidnapping

    Cal. Pen. Code § 207   Cited 2,306 times
    Kidnaping a child for purposes of committing a lewd act
  16. Section 28

    Cal. Const. art. I § 28   Cited 2,124 times
    Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"
  17. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,779 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
  18. Section 1181 - Grant of new trial

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1181   Cited 1,767 times
    Finding contrary to evidence
  19. Section 1

    Cal. Const. art. I § 1   Cited 1,061 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"
  20. Section 1239 - Appeal in manner provided in rules; automatic appeal of judgment of death

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1239   Cited 1,046 times

    (a) Where an appeal lies on behalf of the defendant or the people, it may be taken by the defendant or his or her counsel, or by counsel for the people, in the manner provided in rules adopted by the Judicial Council. (b) When upon any plea a judgment of death is rendered, an appeal is automatically taken by the defendant without any action by him or her or his or her counsel. The defendant's trial counsel, whether retained by the defendant or court appointed, shall continue to represent the defendant