88 Cited authorities

Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,275 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
412 U.S. 218 (1973) Cited 11,956 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search
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”
California v. Trombetta
467 U.S. 479 (1984) Cited 4,131 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,279 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 5,976 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
Rock v. Arkansas
483 U.S. 44 (1987) Cited 2,829 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that a rule that categorically barred all hypnotically refreshed testimony "is an arbitrary restriction ... in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections"
Taylor v. Illinois
484 U.S. 400 (1988) Cited 2,283 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the trial court's exclusion of a witness whose name was untimely disclosed to the government didn't violate the defendant's right to a complete defense
Jackson v. Denno
378 U.S. 368 (1964) Cited 5,135 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial judge must determine, at a separate hearing, that a confession is voluntary before it may be heard by a jury
Maryland v. Shatzer
559 U.S. 98 (2010) Cited 768 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that an individual can be subject to interrogation after invoking the right to counsel if there is a break in custody of fourteen days or longer

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

88 Cited authorities

Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error

Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

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

Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

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 rule that categorically barred all hypnotically refreshed testimony "is an arbitrary restriction ... in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections"

Holding that the trial court's exclusion of a witness whose name was untimely disclosed to the government didn't violate the defendant's right to a complete defense

Holding that trial judge must determine, at a separate hearing, that a confession is voluntary before it may be heard by a jury

Holding that an individual can be subject to interrogation after invoking the right to counsel if there is a break in custody of fourteen days or longer