§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Tyrell Ingram, Appellant.

Brief

36 Cited authorities

  1. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,685 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

  2. California v. Green

    399 U.S. 149 (1970)   Cited 2,914 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements"

  3. Douglas v. Alabama

    380 U.S. 415 (1965)   Cited 1,707 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "although the Solicitor's reading of the witness's alleged statement, and the witness's refusals to answer, were not technically testimony, the Solicitor's reading may well have been the equivalent in the jury's mind of testimony thatthe witness in fact made the statement," and therefore was the basis for a Confrontation Clause violation

  4. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,684 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

  5. Greene v. McElroy

    360 U.S. 474 (1959)   Cited 1,056 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "in the absence of explicit authorization from either the President or Congress, the respondents were not empowered to deprive petitioner of his job in a proceeding in which he was not afforded the safeguards of confrontation and cross-examination"

  6. People v. Sandoval

    34 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 2,457 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court must balance the "probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant's credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant"

  7. People v. Ventimiglia

    52 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 1,262 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government is required to obtain advance judicial approval for the admission of other crimes/bad acts evidence

  8. People v. Gissendanner

    48 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 736 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gissendanner, the court reviewed a lower court's denial of a defendant's request to issue a subpoena for the police personnel files of prosecution witnesses.

  9. People v. Hudy

    73 N.Y.2d 40 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 323 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d at 57, the Court of Appeals held that a trial court's preclusion of cross-examination questions regarding an investigating officer's testimony, coupled with the admission of a prior sexual allegation against the defendant, skewed the case in favor of the state and constituted reversible error.

  10. People v. Schwartzman

    24 N.Y.2d 241 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 452 times
    Holding that cross-examiner cannot contradict witness' answers concerning collateral matters by producing extrinsic evidence for sole purpose of impeaching credibility, but where evidence sought to be introduced is relevant to some issue in case other than credibility, or if evidence is independently admissible to impeach witness, it may be admitted

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 485,542 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation