44 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,230 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Arizona v. Fulminante
499 U.S. 279 (1991) Cited 5,281 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,284 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,276 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"
Chambers v. Mississippi
410 U.S. 284 (1973) Cited 5,975 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable
Corley v. United States
556 U.S. 303 (2009) Cited 752 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous"
Mallory v. United States
354 U.S. 449 (1957) Cited 1,138 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding the confession made by the defendant while in custody is inadmissible because the defendant's untimely arraignment under Rule 5 rendered his custody unlawful
Spano v. New York
360 U.S. 315 (1959) Cited 912 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that using a patrolman who was the suspect's childhood friend to convince the suspect to confess so that the patrolman would not be in trouble from his superiors was coercive
People v. Yukl
25 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. 1969) Cited 1,010 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that reasonable innocent man in defendant's position would not have considered himself "in custody" during interview at police station where he had called police, voluntarily accompanied officers to police station, and voluntarily answered questions
People v. Tucker
55 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 598 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Tucker, we observed that, where a repugnant verdict was the result, not of irrationality, but mercy, courts "should not... undermine the jury's role and participation by setting aside the verdict" (55 NY2d at 7).

The People, Respondent,v.Jin Cheng Lin, Appellant.

44 Cited authorities

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

Holding that a "statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous"

Holding the confession made by the defendant while in custody is inadmissible because the defendant's untimely arraignment under Rule 5 rendered his custody unlawful

Holding that using a patrolman who was the suspect's childhood friend to convince the suspect to confess so that the patrolman would not be in trouble from his superiors was coercive

Holding that reasonable innocent man in defendant's position would not have considered himself "in custody" during interview at police station where he had called police, voluntarily accompanied officers to police station, and voluntarily answered questions

In Tucker, we observed that, where a repugnant verdict was the result, not of irrationality, but mercy, courts "should not... undermine the jury's role and participation by setting aside the verdict" (55 NY2d at 7).