145 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 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”
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,575 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"
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,244 times 64 Legal Analyses
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
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 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"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,998 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”
Roper v. Simmons
543 U.S. 551 (2005) Cited 3,490 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 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 3,121 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,441 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"
Zant v. Stephens
462 U.S. 862 (1983) Cited 1,724 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty"
Section 13
Cal. Const. art. VI § 13 Cited 4,510 times
Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

PEOPLE v. POWELL

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

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"

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 death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

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 the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"

Holding that "an aggravating circumstance must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty"

Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"