47 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Booker

    543 U.S. 220 (2005)   Cited 22,503 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory
  2. United States v. Cotton

    535 U.S. 625 (2002)   Cited 2,252 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the indictment's failure to allege facts about drug quantity, which increased the statutory maximum sentence, did not affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings because the proof of drug quantity was overwhelming
  3. State v. Danielson

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 7,391 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
  4. Napue v. Illinois

    360 U.S. 264 (1959)   Cited 4,071 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a due process violation occurs where the state uses false evidence to obtain a criminal conviction
  5. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 2,930 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
  6. People v. Hawkins

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 1,640 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued
  7. People v. Turner

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8766 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 485 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal
  8. Henry v. Poole

    409 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 388 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in order to sustain a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish that “absent [counsel's] errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt”
  9. People v. Feingold

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5233 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 322 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that depraved indifference to human life, rather than recklessness, is the applicable mens rea in statutes in which the former appears
  10. People v. Suarez

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 9811 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 309 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding depraved indifference charge was not appropriate where defendant intended to kill an individual and did kill that individual, even if the killing was done in a depraved manner.