16 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,394 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"
Richardson v. Marsh
481 U.S. 200 (1987) Cited 3,774 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception
Bruton v. United States
391 U.S. 123 (1968) Cited 8,922 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant
Gray v. Maryland
523 U.S. 185 (1998) Cited 873 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule
Cruz v. New York
481 U.S. 186 (1987) Cited 653 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding error may be harmless where co-defendant's statement is duplicative of defendant's
U.S. v. Dukagjini
326 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 301 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that introduction of recorded conversations via an expert's testimony violated the Confrontation Clause where no expertise was needed to understand the conversation
People v. Kello
96 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 191 times
Holding that hearsay objection alone was insufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection
People v. Goldstein
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 9654 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 144 times
In Goldstein, we also discussed, but did not decide, another hearsay issue: Do statements like those recounted by Hegarty in Goldstein (or by the State's experts in this case) fall within an exception to the hearsay rule?
People v. Hamlin
71 N.Y.2d 750 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 153 times
In People v. Hamlin (71 N.Y.2d 750, 756), the Court of Appeals reiterated that "[c]onstitutional error may be harmless only if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction * * *.
People v. Beasley
16 N.Y.3d 289 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 76 times
Jeremy Gutman, New York City, for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Ann Bordley and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent. OPINION CIPARICK, J. On May 5, 2005, defendant Lamont Beasley was arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and lesser offenses. The matter was presented to a grand jury and, on May 27, 2005, an indictment was filed and the People announced their readiness for trial. On June

The People, Respondent,v.Reyes Rodriguez, Appellant.

16 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 codefendant’s confession that "was not incriminating on its face," but "became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial," to "fall outside" narrow Bruton exception

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is violated when the court admits an incriminating out-of-court statement by a nontestifying codefendant

Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule

Holding error may be harmless where co-defendant's statement is duplicative of defendant's

Holding that introduction of recorded conversations via an expert's testimony violated the Confrontation Clause where no expertise was needed to understand the conversation

Holding that hearsay objection alone was insufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection

In Goldstein, we also discussed, but did not decide, another hearsay issue: Do statements like those recounted by Hegarty in Goldstein (or by the State's experts in this case) fall within an exception to the hearsay rule?

In People v. Hamlin (71 N.Y.2d 750, 756), the Court of Appeals reiterated that "[c]onstitutional error may be harmless only if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted evidence contributed to the conviction * * *.