50 Cited authorities

Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,271 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Tanner v. United States
483 U.S. 107 (1987) Cited 988 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) prohibited inquiry into alleged juror intoxication during deliberations and that other procedural safeguards in the trial process protected the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.
7 N.Y.3d 434 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 376 times 27 Legal Analyses
Finding that "standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective measures are inadequate to demonstrate legal causation"
People v. Walker
83 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 522 times
Noting the general rule that "the nature and extent of cross-examination are matters that are entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court"
People v. Wesley
83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 443 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."
People v. Dorm
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 1065 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 266 times
Finding no error in trial court's admission of evidence of previous arguments and conflicts between the victim and the defendant because evidence, among other things, “provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context”
People v. Almodovar
62 N.Y.2d 126 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 470 times
Holding that a temporary and lawful possession instruction was proper where the defendant claimed that he wrested a pistol from his attacker and fired it in self-defense
Frye v. United States
293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) Cited 4,496 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted
People v. Nicholson
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1206 (N.Y. 2016) Cited 160 times
In Olson, the Supreme Court held that overnight guests have a legitimate privacy interest in the residence where they sleep and so are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures in that home (Minnesota v Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 [1990]).
People v. LeGrand
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2588 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 205 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the principles expounded by the defense expert witness on weapon focus were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community

The People, Respondent,v.Nicholas Brooks, Appellant.

50 Cited authorities

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) prohibited inquiry into alleged juror intoxication during deliberations and that other procedural safeguards in the trial process protected the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial

Finding that "standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective measures are inadequate to demonstrate legal causation"

Noting the general rule that "the nature and extent of cross-examination are matters that are entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court"

Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."

Finding no error in trial court's admission of evidence of previous arguments and conflicts between the victim and the defendant because evidence, among other things, “provided necessary background information on the nature of the relationship and placed the charged conduct in context”

Holding that a temporary and lawful possession instruction was proper where the defendant claimed that he wrested a pistol from his attacker and fired it in self-defense

Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

In Olson, the Supreme Court held that overnight guests have a legitimate privacy interest in the residence where they sleep and so are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures in that home (Minnesota v Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 [1990]).

Holding that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the principles expounded by the defense expert witness on weapon focus were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community