127 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,781 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements
Michigan v. Bryant
562 U.S. 344 (2011) Cited 1,658 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made to police concerning an ongoing emergency are not testimonial
Perry v. New Hampshire
565 U.S. 228 (2012) Cited 1,417 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts need not inquire into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when it is not procured "under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances"
Neil v. Biggers
409 U.S. 188 (1972) Cited 7,482 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding identification occurring seven months after crime was reliable
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,178 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
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S. 377 (1968) Cited 6,511 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"
Tennessee v. Street
471 U.S. 409 (1985) Cited 789 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"
State v. Henderson
208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) Cited 724 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial
People v. Chipp
75 N.Y.2d 327 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 1,124 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the circumstances presented therein, defendant could not call the complaining witness at a pretrial suppression motion
United States v. Rosa
11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 527 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence insufficient to prove attempted distribution where defendant "did not produce any heroin for the proposed sale . . ., and there was no evidence that [he] ever entered into an agreement with a supplier or made inquiry of a supplier to obtain heroin for the proposed sale"
Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
U.S. Const. amend. VI Cited 29,250 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

The People, Respondent,v.Todd Holley, Appellant.

127 Cited authorities

Holding that the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements

Holding that statements made to police concerning an ongoing emergency are not testimonial

Holding that courts need not inquire into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when it is not procured "under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances"

Holding identification occurring seven months after crime was reliable

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

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 non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"

Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial

Holding that under the circumstances presented therein, defendant could not call the complaining witness at a pretrial suppression motion

Holding evidence insufficient to prove attempted distribution where defendant "did not produce any heroin for the proposed sale . . ., and there was no evidence that [he] ever entered into an agreement with a supplier or made inquiry of a supplier to obtain heroin for the proposed sale"

Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."