114 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,659 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"
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,445 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
United States v. Agurs
427 U.S. 97 (1976) Cited 7,516 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"
Arizona v. Youngblood
488 U.S. 51 (1988) Cited 3,875 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law"
State v. Danielson
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 9,468 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
California v. Trombetta
467 U.S. 479 (1984) Cited 4,135 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
480 U.S. 39 (1987) Cited 2,676 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"
People v. Contes
60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 11,960 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"
Napue v. Illinois
360 U.S. 264 (1959) Cited 4,814 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it knowingly offers or fails to correct false or misleading testimony
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
458 U.S. 858 (1982) Cited 1,504 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that, while a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his right to call witnesses in his favor “arbitrarily,” the defendant “must at least make some plausible showing of how [the proposed witness'] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”

The People, Respondent,v.Dayshawn P. Handy, Appellant.

114 Cited authorities

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 the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record"

Holding that "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law"

Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it knowingly offers or fails to correct false or misleading testimony

Holding that, while a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of his right to call witnesses in his favor “arbitrarily,” the defendant “must at least make some plausible showing of how [the proposed witness'] testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”