69 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 14,477 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an absent witness's statements are admissible under the Confrontation Clause "only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant [] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine"
  2. Ashe v. Swenson

    397 U.S. 436 (1970)   Cited 3,318 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
  3. Harris v. New York

    401 U.S. 222 (1971)   Cited 2,352 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment on cross-examination
  4. People v. Baldi

    54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 5,510 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. 54 N.Y.2d at 146.
  5. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 2,893 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
  6. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,175 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"
  7. Oregon v. Hass

    420 U.S. 714 (1975)   Cited 979 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
  8. People v. Galloway

    54 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 1,404 times
    Agreeing that reversal of a conviction "`is properly shunned when the [prosecutorial] misconduct has not substantially prejudiced a defendant's trial'"
  9. People v. Overlee

    236 A.D.2d 133 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 716 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”
  10. People v. D'Alessandro

    184 A.D.2d 114 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 741 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