55 Cited authorities

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
State v. Henderson
208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) Cited 703 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 1,102 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the circumstances presented therein, defendant could not call the complaining witness at a pretrial suppression motion
People v. Rodriguez
79 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 641 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."
People v. Malphurs
111 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985) Cited 445 times
May 13, 1985 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.). Judgment affirmed. On July 5, 1977, at approximately 10:30 P.M., two males forcibly entered the complainant's two-door car while it was stopped at a red traffic light. The first male to enter the car from the passenger door held a knife to the complainant's throat while his companion climbed into the back seat. The complainant's purse was handed out of the car to a third male whose face the complainant never saw. After the complainant
Ryan v. Miller
303 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 249 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that a "blanket statement" that "[t]he defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit" constituted adjudication on the merits
Raheem v. Kelly
257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 251 times
Holding that line-up was unnecessarily suggestive where petitioner was only participant wearing black leather coat which featured prominently in witnesses' descriptions of the shooter
People v. Adams
53 N.Y.2d 241 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 397 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the state's due-process requirements require per se exclusion of unnecessarily suggestive showups
People v. Dodt
61 N.Y.2d 408 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 360 times
In Dodt, despite the fact that the defendant did not even display a gun when he threatened to shoot his victim, the defendant was found to have abducted his victim by the “threatened use of deadly force.” Id.
People v. Riley
70 N.Y.2d 523 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 268 times
Holding the defendant's actions in placing his victim in the trunk of his car and driving around for approximately three hours went "well beyond the robbery and constituted the independent crime of kidnapping"

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

55 Cited authorities

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

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 that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."

Finding that a "blanket statement" that "[t]he defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit" constituted adjudication on the merits

Holding that line-up was unnecessarily suggestive where petitioner was only participant wearing black leather coat which featured prominently in witnesses' descriptions of the shooter

Holding that the state's due-process requirements require per se exclusion of unnecessarily suggestive showups

In Dodt, despite the fact that the defendant did not even display a gun when he threatened to shoot his victim, the defendant was found to have abducted his victim by the “threatened use of deadly force.” Id.

Holding the defendant's actions in placing his victim in the trunk of his car and driving around for approximately three hours went "well beyond the robbery and constituted the independent crime of kidnapping"