120 Cited authorities

  1. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 25,426 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 16,308 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. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 18,234 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  4. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,186 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"
  5. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,856 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”
  6. Jones v. Barnes

    463 U.S. 745 (1983)   Cited 10,506 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was not ineffective assistance for appellate counsel to decline to make every nonfrivolous argument requested by the defendant
  7. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,135 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"
  8. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 22,360 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
  9. Faretta v. California

    422 U.S. 806 (1975)   Cited 11,675 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial
  10. Harmelin v. Michigan

    501 U.S. 957 (1991)   Cited 4,532 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence
  11. Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation

    Cal. R. 4.421   Cited 1,838 times

    Circumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, include the fact that: (1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; (2) The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;

  12. Rule 4.423 - Circumstances in mitigation

    Cal. R. 4.423   Cited 453 times

    Circumstances in mitigation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Factors relating to the crime include that: (1) The defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the crime; (2) The victim was an initiator of, willing participant in, or aggressor or provoker of the incident; (3) The crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, that is unlikely to recur; (4) The defendant participated

  13. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 15 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or