10 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 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"
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. Santiago
52 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 383 times
Holding that the failure to make "an application seeking further or more complete instructions" precluded defendant from "assert[ing] the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal"
People v. Hardy
4 N.Y.3d 192 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 108 times
In Hardy, the only evidence that inculpated the defendant was the testimony of a person with a dubious criminal history and the plea allocution of a nontestifying codefendant (4 N.Y.3d at 198–199, 791 N.Y.S.2d 513, 824 N.E.2d 953).
People v. Cantave
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4723 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 81 times
Reviewing for abuse of discretion trial court's exclusion of 911 call because it was not an excited utterance
People v. Trowbridge
305 N.Y. 471 (N.Y. 1953) Cited 445 times
Barring third parties from testifying about a witness's out-of-court identifications in New York courts
People v. Arce
42 N.Y.2d 179 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 144 times
In People v Arce (42 N.Y.2d 179) counsel for codefendant Arce inquired of Camara as to whether Camara, at the time of his arrest, told the police about the shootings.
People v. McClean
69 N.Y.2d 426 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 105 times
Argued March 25, 1987 Decided April 30, 1987 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, John J. Clyne, J. Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (Renee Z. Farnham of counsel), for appellant. Robert S. Smith for respondent. SIMONS, J. Defendant has been convicted of robbing King's Variety Store in Albany. The conviction rests largely on testimony by his two accomplices, Ricky Cuff, who entered the store before the robbery, posing as a customer, and Jacob Whitbeck
People v. Caserta
19 N.Y.2d 18 (N.Y. 1966) Cited 178 times
In Caserta, the New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction solely because a witness was permitted to testify about his out-of-court identification and another witness was permitted to corroborate this testimony.
People v. Rivera
96 N.Y.2d 749 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 28 times
Decided February 20, 2001. Appeal, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 21, 1999, which affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered in New York County upon a verdict convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. Frank J. Loss, for appellant. Ellen Sue Handman, for respondent. Chief Judge Kaye

The People, Respondent,v.Joshue DeJesus, Appellant.

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

Holding that the failure to make "an application seeking further or more complete instructions" precluded defendant from "assert[ing] the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal"

In Hardy, the only evidence that inculpated the defendant was the testimony of a person with a dubious criminal history and the plea allocution of a nontestifying codefendant (4 N.Y.3d at 198–199, 791 N.Y.S.2d 513, 824 N.E.2d 953).

Reviewing for abuse of discretion trial court's exclusion of 911 call because it was not an excited utterance

Barring third parties from testifying about a witness's out-of-court identifications in New York courts

In People v Arce (42 N.Y.2d 179) counsel for codefendant Arce inquired of Camara as to whether Camara, at the time of his arrest, told the police about the shootings.

In Caserta, the New York Court of Appeals reversed a conviction solely because a witness was permitted to testify about his out-of-court identification and another witness was permitted to corroborate this testimony.