36 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 18,600 times   27 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 6,214 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to cross-examine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
  3. United States v. Cronic

    466 U.S. 648 (1984)   Cited 6,220 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be based on actual specified errors and not merely the circumstances surrounding the representation
  4. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,112 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 1,321 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 5,164 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 320 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 1,535 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 292 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 267 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. s 670.10 - (Repealed)

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

    22 CRR-NY 670.10 Current through July 31, 2018