28 Cited authorities

Herring v. New York
422 U.S. 853 (1975) Cited 1,161 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a New York statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel
State v. Henderson
208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) Cited 703 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial
Watkins v. Sowders
449 U.S. 341 (1981) Cited 364 times
Holding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a per se rule that a hearing outside the presence of the jury be conducted whenever a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification
People v. Gonzalez
68 N.Y.2d 424 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 984 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v Gonzalez (68 NY2d 424 [1986]), we set forth the conditions necessary to warrant a missing witness charge and a burden-shifting analysis to determine whether those conditions are met.
People v. Rodriguez
79 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 641 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."
People v. Mendoza
23 Cal.4th 896 (Cal. 2000) Cited 455 times
In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.
Cool v. United States
409 U.S. 100 (1972) Cited 294 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an instruction which "allow[ed] the jury to convict despite its failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" mandates reversal of the conviction
People v. McDonald
37 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1984) Cited 544 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding exclusion of expert on reliability of eyewitness testimony was an abuse of discretion
Commonwealth v. Walker
92 A.3d 766 (Pa. 2014) Cited 144 times
Holding admission of expert testimony in the field of human memory, perception, and recall, for purposes of challenging eyewitness identification of defendant, was not per se impermissible, but subject to trial court's discretion
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista
442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004) Cited 188 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that when the prosecution introduces evidence of a defendant's custodial confession and there is not an audio recording of the complete interrogation, upon request, the defendant is entitled to a cautionary instruction "that the State's highest court has expressed a preference that such interrogations be recorded," and the jury should weigh "the evidence of the defendant's alleged statement with great caution and care"
Rule 105 - Limiting Evidence That Is Not Admissible Against Other Parties or for Other Purposes
Fed. R. Evid. 105 Cited 617 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing district court's power to admit evidence for a limited purpose

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

28 Cited authorities

Holding that a New York statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel

Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial

Holding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a per se rule that a hearing outside the presence of the jury be conducted whenever a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification

In People v Gonzalez (68 NY2d 424 [1986]), we set forth the conditions necessary to warrant a missing witness charge and a burden-shifting analysis to determine whether those conditions are met.

Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."

In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.

Holding that an instruction which "allow[ed] the jury to convict despite its failure to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" mandates reversal of the conviction

Holding exclusion of expert on reliability of eyewitness testimony was an abuse of discretion

Holding admission of expert testimony in the field of human memory, perception, and recall, for purposes of challenging eyewitness identification of defendant, was not per se impermissible, but subject to trial court's discretion

Recognizing district court's power to admit evidence for a limited purpose