§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Lee Carr, Appellant.

Brief

36 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,461 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  2. Delaware v. Van Arsdall

    475 U.S. 673 (1986)   Cited 7,273 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

  3. United States v. Cronic

    466 U.S. 648 (1984)   Cited 7,357 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

  4. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,684 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

  5. Kentucky v. Stincer

    482 U.S. 730 (1987)   Cited 1,585 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process

  6. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,683 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

  7. Perry v. Leeke

    488 U.S. 272 (1989)   Cited 372 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding no Sixth Amendment right to consult with attorney during a 15-minute recess in the middle of cross-examination

  8. People v. Rosario

    9 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1961)   Cited 1,651 times
    Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony

  9. People v. Dokes

    79 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 305 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's presence required at Sandoval hearing

  10. People v. Velasco

    77 N.Y.2d 469 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 280 times
    Holding that defendant's presence not required for charging conference in robing room attended by attorneys for both sides involving only questions of law and procedure

  11. Section 670.10 - Repealed

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 670.10   Cited 34 times

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 670.10