251 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 158,093 times   176 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
  2. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 25,326 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  3. Apprendi v. New Jersey

    530 U.S. 466 (2000)   Cited 26,583 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”
  4. Blakely v. Washington

    542 U.S. 296 (2004)   Cited 16,599 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. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,383 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"
  6. Estelle v. McGuire

    502 U.S. 62 (1991)   Cited 19,874 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal habeas court may not reexamine state court determinations of state law questions
  7. Cunningham v. California

    549 U.S. 270 (2007)   Cited 4,289 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"
  8. Ring v. Arizona

    536 U.S. 584 (2002)   Cited 4,991 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”
  9. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,920 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
  10. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,424 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"