§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Jamell R. McCullough, Respondent.

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. Holmes v. South Carolina

    547 U.S. 319 (2006)   Cited 1,897 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"

  2. Perry v. New Hampshire

    565 U.S. 228 (2012)   Cited 1,357 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts need not inquire into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when it is not procured "under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances"

  3. United States v. Scheffer

    523 U.S. 303 (1998)   Cited 1,979 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the blanket exclusion of polygraph evidence didn't violate the right to present a defense, as the law was "a rational and proportional means of advancing the legitimate interest in barring unreliable evidence"

  4. Crane v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 683 (1986)   Cited 3,278 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an opportunity to present a complete defense "would be an empty one if the State were permitted to exclude competent, reliable evidence bearing on the credibility of a confession when such evidence is central to the defendant's claim of innocence"

  5. United States v. Wade

    388 U.S. 218 (1967)   Cited 8,065 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

  6. Watkins v. Sowders

    449 U.S. 341 (1981)   Cited 364 times
    Holding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a per se rule that a hearing outside the presence of the jury be conducted whenever a defendant challenges the admissibility of a witness's identification

  7. Commonwealth v. Crayton

    470 Mass. 228 (Mass. 2014)   Cited 328 times
    Holding that defendant has burden to establish that there is no good reason for admission of in-court identification and noting that “there may be good reason ... [when] the eyewitness was familiar with the defendant before the commission of the crime ... [or when] the witness is an arresting officer who was also an eyewitness to the commission of the crime, and the identification merely confirms that the defendant is the person who was arrested for the charged crime”

  8. United States v. Downing

    753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985)   Cited 689 times
    Holding that “a defendant who seeks the admission of expert testimony must make an on-the-record detailed proffer to the court, including an explanation of precisely how the expert's testimony is relevant to the [issues in dispute]”

  9. 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."

  10. People v. Lerma

    2016 IL 118496 (Ill. 2016)   Cited 182 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's right to due process and a fundamentally fair trial includes the right to present witnesses on his or her own behalf

  11. Section 60.22 - Rules of evidence; corroboration of accomplice testimony

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 60.22   Cited 977 times   1 Legal Analyses

    1. A defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense. 2. An "accomplice" means a witness in a criminal action who, according to evidence adduced in such action, may reasonably be considered to have participated in: (a) The offense charged; or (b) An offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged. 3. A witness

  12. Section 60.50 - Rules of evidence; statements of defendants; corroboration

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 60.50   Cited 341 times

    A person may not be convicted of any offense solely upon evidence of a confession or admission made by him without additional proof that the offense charged has been committed. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 60.50

  13. Section 210.50 - Perjury and related offenses; requirement of corroboration

    N.Y. Penal Law § 210.50   Cited 38 times

    In any prosecution for perjury, except a prosecution based upon inconsistent statements pursuant to section 210.20, or in any prosecution for making an apparently sworn false statement, or making a punishable false written statement, falsity of a statement may not be established by the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. N.Y. Penal Law § 210.50