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"
Michigan v. Bryant
562 U.S. 344 (2011) Cited 1,582 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made to police concerning an ongoing emergency are not testimonial
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
564 U.S. 647 (2011) Cited 1,548 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial
People v. Hawkins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 1,877 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,231 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
Tennessee v. Street
471 U.S. 409 (1985) Cited 775 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"
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"
U.S. v. Stewart
433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 327 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court "did not err by failing to instruct the jurors that they must agree unanimously as to which theory of the offense . . . supported the verdict"
People v. Rosen
96 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 342 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction

The People, Respondent,v.Joshue DeJesus, 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 that statements made to police concerning an ongoing emergency are not testimonial

Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial

Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued

Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

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

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 that the district court "did not err by failing to instruct the jurors that they must agree unanimously as to which theory of the offense . . . supported the verdict"

Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction