33 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,414 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"
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,804 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Richardson v. Marsh
481 U.S. 200 (1987) Cited 3,779 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 8,926 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
Pointer v. Texas
380 U.S. 400 (1965) Cited 4,296 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”
Gray v. Maryland
523 U.S. 185 (1998) Cited 874 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding confession redactions that obviously refer to defendant fall within Bruton ’s protective rule
State Oil Co. v. Khan
522 U.S. 3 (1997) Cited 688 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that court of appeals was correct to apply Supreme Court precedent despite its "infirmities, its increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations" (alteration in original)
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,688 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"
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. Mejia
545 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 345 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that certain expert testimony about the defendant's alleged crimes was unhelpful because it was "well within the grasp of the average juror"

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

33 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 statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

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 that “the Sixth Amendment's right of an accused to confront the witnesses against him is likewise a fundamental right and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment”

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

Holding that court of appeals was correct to apply Supreme Court precedent despite its "infirmities, its increasingly wobbly, moth-eaten foundations" (alteration in original)

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"

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

Holding that certain expert testimony about the defendant's alleged crimes was unhelpful because it was "well within the grasp of the average juror"