50 Cited authorities

Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,411 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 1,004 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 396 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 524 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 452 times 2 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 278 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 478 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 4,556 times 52 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 174 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. Cass
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1144 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 185 times
2012-02-16 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mickey CASS, Appellant. Appellate Advocates, New York City (Warren S. Landau and Lynn WL. Fahey of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Joyce Slevin, Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel), for respondent. JONES Appellate Advocates, New York City (Warren S. Landau and Lynn WL. Fahey of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Joyce Slevin, Leonard Joblove and Victor

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]).