69 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,386 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"
Ashe v. Swenson
397 U.S. 436 (1970) Cited 3,523 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a defendant acquitted of robbing one participant at a poker game from being prosecuted for robbing any of the other participants at the same game
Harris v. New York
401 U.S. 222 (1971) Cited 2,513 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment on cross-examination
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,227 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 5,973 times 6 Legal Analyses
In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,682 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"
Oregon v. Hass
420 U.S. 714 (1975) Cited 1,011 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained in violation of Miranda, though excluded from the prosecution's case-in-chief, may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony if otherwise voluntary
People v. Galloway
54 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 1,426 times
Agreeing that reversal of a conviction "'is properly shunned when the [prosecutorial] misconduct has not substantially prejudiced a defendant's trial'"
People v. Overlee
236 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 783 times
Holding the defendant's challenge that the prosecutor used snide remarks to portray him as a liar was not prejudicial because “[t]he use of sarcasm is, of course, a well recognized device to illustrate the inherent implausibility of a witness's testimony”
People v. D'Alessandro
184 A.D.2d 114 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) Cited 805 times
December 22, 1992 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Jerome Hornblass, J. James M. McGuire of counsel (Hilary Hassler and Beth J. Thomas with him on the brief; Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, attorney), for appellant. Salvatore S. Russo, attorney, for respondent. MILONAS, J.P. Defendant was found guilty, following a jury trial, of kidnapping in the first degree, coercion in the first degree, assault in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted grand

The People, Respondent,v.Luis Ortiz, Appellant.

69 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 the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a defendant acquitted of robbing one participant at a poker game from being prosecuted for robbing any of the other participants at the same game

Holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment on cross-examination

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

In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

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 statements obtained in violation of Miranda, though excluded from the prosecution's case-in-chief, may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony if otherwise voluntary

Agreeing that reversal of a conviction "'is properly shunned when the [prosecutorial] misconduct has not substantially prejudiced a defendant's trial'"

Holding the defendant's challenge that the prosecutor used snide remarks to portray him as a liar was not prejudicial because “[t]he use of sarcasm is, of course, a well recognized device to illustrate the inherent implausibility of a witness's testimony”