27 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,395 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,275 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,685 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643 (1961) Cited 8,289 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,684 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"
People v. Garafolo
44 A.D.2d 86 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974) Cited 1,964 times
In Garafolo, a police officer testified that he observed unlawful untaxed cigarettes through a bag, which the court observed was not possible.
People v. Gissendanner
48 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 736 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Gissendanner, the court reviewed a lower court's denial of a defendant's request to issue a subpoena for the police personnel files of prosecution witnesses.
People v. Berrios
28 N.Y.2d 361 (N.Y. 1971) Cited 600 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued March 2, 1971 Decided May 12, 1971 Appeal from the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, NEAL P. BOTTIGLIERI, J., WALTER H. GLADWIN, J., NICHOLAS F. DELAGI, J., DENNIS EDWARDS, JR., J., LOUIS SCHRIFIN, J. Appeal from the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts of the Second Judicial Department, ALLEN BELDOCK, J., ALBERT R. MURRAY, J. Donald H. Zuckerman, Milton Adler, William E. Hellerstein, Lewis B. Oliver, Jr., Carol Berkman and William A. Nelson for appellants
People v. Wise
46 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 266 times 1 Legal Analyses
In People v. Wise (46 N.Y.2d 321), the Court of Appeals relied on traditional formulations of using prior inconsistent statements as a principal means of testing a witness' credibility in holding that a defendant could be impeached by the use of suppressed oral statements.
Badr v. Hogan
75 N.Y.2d 629 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 103 times
Holding that the trial court committed reversible error in permitting defense counsel to cross-examine plaintiff in contravention of the rule barring the use of extrinsic evidence to contradict a witness's answers on collateral matters — here, her denial that she had received public welfare funds to which she was not entitled — for the sole purpose of impeaching the witness's credibility
Section 36 - Acquisition by condemnation
N.Y. State Law § 36 Cited 5 times
When the United States shall have been authorized by law to acquire title to any real property within this state, such title may be acquired by gift or grant from the owners thereof, or by condemnation if, for any reason, the United States is unable to agree with the owners for the purchase thereof. N.Y. State § 36

The People, Respondent,v.Isma McGhee, Also Known as Izzy, Appellant.

27 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

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

Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

Holding that the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies to the States, and overruling the contrary rule of Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, after considering and rejecting "the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based"

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"

In Garafolo, a police officer testified that he observed unlawful untaxed cigarettes through a bag, which the court observed was not possible.

In Gissendanner, the court reviewed a lower court's denial of a defendant's request to issue a subpoena for the police personnel files of prosecution witnesses.

In People v. Wise (46 N.Y.2d 321), the Court of Appeals relied on traditional formulations of using prior inconsistent statements as a principal means of testing a witness' credibility in holding that a defendant could be impeached by the use of suppressed oral statements.