84 Cited authorities

Lamie v. U.S. Trustee
540 U.S. 526 (2004) Cited 2,140 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should not add an "absent word" to a statute
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
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,065 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
480 U.S. 39 (1987) Cited 2,671 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"
Dunaway v. New York
442 U.S. 200 (1979) Cited 3,722 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that seizing and transporting a suspect to a police station for interrogation without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S. 377 (1968) Cited 6,451 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"
Delaware v. Fensterer
474 U.S. 15 (1985) Cited 2,017 times
Holding that the confrontation clause guarantees only "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."
Ohio v. Johnson
467 U.S. 493 (1984) Cited 1,195 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes
Weyant v. Okst
101 F.3d 845 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 2,657 times
Holding a plaintiff must establish "something more than mere negligence" to establish deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment
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"
Rule 608 - A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
Fed. R. Evid. 608 Cited 2,984 times 16 Legal Analyses
Assuming it was otherwise admissible

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

84 Cited authorities

Holding that courts should not add an "absent word" to a statute

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

Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

Holding that seizing and transporting a suspect to a police station for interrogation without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment

Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"

Holding that the confrontation clause guarantees only "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish."

Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes

Holding a plaintiff must establish "something more than mere negligence" to establish deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment

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"

Assuming it was otherwise admissible