59 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,297 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
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,290 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,282 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 5,979 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
Taylor v. Illinois
484 U.S. 400 (1988) Cited 2,286 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 5,139 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
People v. Mateo
2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,447 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."
Duncan v. Louisiana
391 U.S. 145 (1968) Cited 3,003 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial by jury is a fundamental right
Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938) Cited 8,801 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
Culombe v. Connecticut
367 U.S. 568 (1961) Cited 1,441 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding involuntary the confession extracted from a “thirty-three-year-old mental defective ... with an intelligence quotient of sixty-four”

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

59 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 “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 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

Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."

Holding that trial by jury is a fundamental right

Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

Holding involuntary the confession extracted from a “thirty-three-year-old mental defective ... with an intelligence quotient of sixty-four”