§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Otis Boone, Appellant.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Harrington v. Richter

    562 U.S. 86 (2011)   Cited 26,245 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that AEDPA deference applies even when state court issues summary ruling

  2. Cupp v. Naughten

    414 U.S. 141 (1973)   Cited 3,840 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury instruction did not "impliedly place[] the burden of proof" on the defendant where "the State's burden of proof was emphasized and re-emphasized in the course of the complete jury instructions"

  3. People v. Whalen

    59 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Whalen, the defendant argued that identification evidence is "always suspect, so that, when a trial involves a close question of identity, the jury should receive an instruction emphasizing the scrutiny to be given to such evidence.

  4. People v. Cronin

    60 N.Y.2d 430 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 362 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing trial court's preclusion of expert testimony on the impact of alcohol, marijuana and Valium on defendant's ability to act purposefully

  5. U.S. v. Bartlett

    567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 159 times
    Holding in the context of an asserted procedural sentencing error by the district court that the defendant's "sentence was the subject of extensive argument and evidence; his lawyer did not need to argue with the judge once the sentence had been pronounced"

  6. United States v. Telfaire

    469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972)   Cited 413 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting defendant's request for a special jury instruction on the risks of misidentification in case where witness's identification of defendant was spontaneous at the scene of the crime

  7. Commonwealth v. Bastaldo

    472 Mass. 16 (Mass. 2015)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that, prospectively, "a cross-racial instruction should always be included when giving the model eyewitness identification instruction, unless the parties agree that there was no cross-racial identification"

  8. State v. Long

    721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986)   Cited 136 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that eyewitness identification instructions are mandatory "whenever eyewitness identification is a central issue in a case and such an instruction is requested by the defense"

  9. People v. Young

    7 N.Y.3d 40 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 63 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Describing the Appellate Division's finding with respect to the independent source issue as “an issue of fact” and holding that therefore the court “may not disturb” the Appellate Division's finding

  10. Selkowitz v. County of Nassau

    45 N.Y.2d 97 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 134 times
    In Selkowitz v. County of Nassau (45 N.Y.2d 97), a negligence action involving an automobile collision during a high-speed police chase, the court held that expert testimony was admissible "to clarify the proper police practice expected in a given police emergency, despite the fact that no specific departmental rules or formal guidelines prevail and despite the jury's common understanding of driving standards generally" (Selkowitz v. County of Nassau, supra, at p 103).