45 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,644 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”
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,411 times 82 Legal Analyses
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
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,615 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”
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 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”
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,946 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,474 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,287 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez
548 U.S. 140 (2006) Cited 2,097 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice
Johnson v. United States
520 U.S. 461 (1997) Cited 2,982 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the reversal of a conviction" supported by "overwhelming" evidence would itself " ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings’ " (quoting Olano , 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770 )
Sullivan v. Louisiana
508 U.S. 275 (1993) Cited 3,279 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

45 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 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"

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”

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

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

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice does not require showing prejudice

Holding that "the reversal of a conviction" supported by "overwhelming" evidence would itself " ‘seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings’ " (quoting Olano , 507 U.S. at 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770 )

Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "