25 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,411 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,625 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
State v. Danielson
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 9,453 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,296 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"
People v. Stultz
2 N.Y.3d 277 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 3,232 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding "a defendant's showing of prejudice [to be] a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation," focusing instead on "the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"
People v. Caban
5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 1,638 times
Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth
People v. Porto
16 N.Y.3d 93 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 311 times
Nos. 219, 220. Argued November 16, 2010. Decided December 21, 2010. APPEAL, in the first above-entitled action, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 6, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, J.), which had convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree. APPEAL, in the second
People v. Delamota
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8225 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 285 times 1 Legal Analyses
Expressing skepticism about lineup procedures because, among other concerns, family member with prior exposure to perpetrator had to translate for witness
People v. Brown
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8475 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 137 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "defendant's [statute of limitations] motion would have been meritless" under the tolling provision in C.P.L. § 30.10 and his counsel was not ineffective in raising it because the defendants identity could not have been known until the cold hit was made through the DNA backlog project
People v. Rawlins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1420 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 140 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that 30.10 applied even though defendant was not identified through a DNA match and indicted until eight years after the crime

The People, Respondent,v.William Rodriguez, Appellant.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"

Holding "a defendant's showing of prejudice [to be] a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation," focusing instead on "the fairness of the proceedings as a whole"

Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

Expressing skepticism about lineup procedures because, among other concerns, family member with prior exposure to perpetrator had to translate for witness

Holding that "defendant's [statute of limitations] motion would have been meritless" under the tolling provision in C.P.L. § 30.10 and his counsel was not ineffective in raising it because the defendants identity could not have been known until the cold hit was made through the DNA backlog project

Holding that 30.10 applied even though defendant was not identified through a DNA match and indicted until eight years after the crime