105 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 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"
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,556 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,434 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
475 U.S. 673 (1986) Cited 7,284 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a restriction on defendant's ability to crossexamine witness in violation of Sixth Amendment was non-structural error
People v. Romero
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8640 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 4,926 times
No. 151. Argued October 18, 2006. Decided November 21, 2006. APPEAL, 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 11, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of murder in the second degree. People v. Romero, 22 AD3d 287, affirmed. Center
People v. Contes
60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 11,959 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"
People v. Galloway
54 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 1,426 times
Agreeing that reversal of a conviction "'is properly shunned when the [prosecutorial] misconduct has not substantially prejudiced a defendant's trial'"
People v. Ashwal
39 N.Y.2d 105 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 1,144 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Ashwal, the New York Court of Appeals cited Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S. Ct. 629 (1935), to support the proposition that "[a]bove all [the prosecutor] should not seek to lead the jury away from the issues by drawing irrelevant and inflammatory conclusions which have a decided tendency to prejudice the jury against the defendant."
People v. Rosario
9 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1961) Cited 1,652 times
Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony
People v. Wesley
83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 443 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."

The People, Respondent,v.Patrick A. Asaro, Appellant.

105 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 a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

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

Stating the standard for review of the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

Agreeing that reversal of a conviction "'is properly shunned when the [prosecutorial] misconduct has not substantially prejudiced a defendant's trial'"

Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony

Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."