36 Cited authorities

Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts
557 U.S. 305 (2009) Cited 3,542 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 43,242 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
Maryland v. Craig
497 U.S. 836 (1990) Cited 1,768 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendants do not have an "absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial"
People v. Contes
60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 11,955 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. Rosario
9 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1961) Cited 1,649 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."
Frye v. United States
293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) Cited 4,494 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted
People v. Vilardi
76 N.Y.2d 67 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 343 times 3 Legal Analyses
Comparing the state law standard — whether there was a "reasonable possibility" that withheld evidence could have affected the result of the proceeding — to the federal standard of "reasonable probability"
People v. Ranghelle
69 N.Y.2d 56 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 312 times
In Ranghelle, the Court of Appeals found that certain memo books not turned over to the defense were not the duplicative equivalent of incident reports that merely transcribed the information in those memo books.
Matott v. Ward
48 N.Y.2d 455 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 354 times
Discussing formulation of medical expert's opinion regarding causation, and holding that the issue of causation was properly presented to the jury although the expert testified that he could not say with certainty that car accident was sole cause of plaintiff's condition

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

36 Cited authorities

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 defendants do not have an "absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial"

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"

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."

Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

Comparing the state law standard — whether there was a "reasonable possibility" that withheld evidence could have affected the result of the proceeding — to the federal standard of "reasonable probability"

In Ranghelle, the Court of Appeals found that certain memo books not turned over to the defense were not the duplicative equivalent of incident reports that merely transcribed the information in those memo books.

Discussing formulation of medical expert's opinion regarding causation, and holding that the issue of causation was properly presented to the jury although the expert testified that he could not say with certainty that car accident was sole cause of plaintiff's condition