29 Cited authorities

U.S v. Patane
542 U.S. 630 (2004) Cited 798 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require "suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements"
Estelle v. Smith
451 U.S. 454 (1981) Cited 1,564 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that a psychiatrist's testimony about the defendant's future dangerousness in a capital felony trial violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights where the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before his psychiatric examination
Buchanan v. Kentucky
483 U.S. 402 (1987) Cited 504 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution’s use of rebuttal expert testimony is permissible where a defendant “presents psychiatric evidence”
Brooks v. Tennessee
406 U.S. 605 (1972) Cited 480 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional a statute which required a defendant to testify as her first witness or not at all
New Jersey v. Portash
440 U.S. 450 (1979) Cited 309 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that testimony given in response to a grant of legislative immunity is "coerced testimony" because the person must testify or potentially face contempt charges, and under such circumstances "there is no question whether physical or psychological pressures overrode the defendant's will"
People v. Clayton
41 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973) Cited 329 times
Finding the use of § 210.40 "depended only on principles of justice, not on the legal or factual merits of the charge or even on the guilt or innocence of the defendant"
People v. Roche
98 N.Y.2d 70 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 133 times
Holding that a defendant who stabbed his common law wife was not entitled to a jury charge on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance, citing, among other reasons, defendant's behavior, including providing a false explanation to the neighbors for his wife's death and removing items from the apartment to prevent the police from discovering them
People v. Cruickshank
105 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985) Cited 168 times
January 17, 1985 Appeal from the Saratoga County Court, G. Thomas Moynihan, Jr., J. McMahon McMahon ( John L. McMahon of counsel), for appellant. David A. Wait, District Attorney, for respondent. MAHONEY, P.J. This case involves the fatal shooting of G. Alan Cruickshank by his teen-age daughter during the early evening hours of November 15, 1982 in the garage of the Cruickshank residence located in the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County. At the time of the shooting, Mr. Cruickshank had been separated
Lee v. County Ct. of Erie County
27 N.Y.2d 432 (N.Y. 1971) Cited 232 times
Holding that an accused has a right to have counsel present at pretrial psychiatric examinations in order to make more effective his basic right of cross-examination
People v. Berk
88 N.Y.2d 257 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 111 times
Upholding the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that appellant had no duty to retreat, as there was a factual dispute as to whether the premises in which appellant shot the victim was appellant's dwelling

The People, Respondent,v.Victor Gonzalez, Appellant.

29 Cited authorities

Holding that a failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings does not require "suppression of the physical fruits of the suspect's unwarned but voluntary statements"

Holding that a psychiatrist's testimony about the defendant's future dangerousness in a capital felony trial violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights where the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before his psychiatric examination

Holding that the prosecution’s use of rebuttal expert testimony is permissible where a defendant “presents psychiatric evidence”

Holding unconstitutional a statute which required a defendant to testify as her first witness or not at all

Holding that testimony given in response to a grant of legislative immunity is "coerced testimony" because the person must testify or potentially face contempt charges, and under such circumstances "there is no question whether physical or psychological pressures overrode the defendant's will"

Finding the use of § 210.40 "depended only on principles of justice, not on the legal or factual merits of the charge or even on the guilt or innocence of the defendant"

Holding that an accused has a right to have counsel present at pretrial psychiatric examinations in order to make more effective his basic right of cross-examination

Upholding the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that appellant had no duty to retreat, as there was a factual dispute as to whether the premises in which appellant shot the victim was appellant's dwelling