33 Cited authorities

  1. Holmes v. South Carolina

    547 U.S. 319 (2006)   Cited 1,452 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional a state evidentiary rule automatically excluding alternative perpetrator evidence when the prosecution case was strong
  2. United States v. Wade

    388 U.S. 218 (1967)   Cited 7,437 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
  3. Perry v. New Hampshire

    565 U.S. 228 (2012)   Cited 1,018 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the due process check on eyewitness identifications "comes into play only after the defendant establishes improper police conduct"
  4. United States v. Scheffer

    523 U.S. 303 (1998)   Cited 1,646 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant was able to present his defense when the defendant was prevented from using evidence that would have bolstered his credibility
  5. Crane v. Kentucky

    476 U.S. 683 (1986)   Cited 2,612 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the state court's exclusion of evidence probative of the credibility of the defendant's confession because the proffered evidence was relevant to voluntariness, an issue the court had already ruled on, violated the defendant's right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
  6. Watkins v. Sowders

    449 U.S. 341 (1981)   Cited 320 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. United States v. Downing

    753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985)   Cited 610 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]”
  8. People v. Wesley

    83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 419 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."
  9. Commonwealth v. Crayton

    470 Mass. 228 (Mass. 2014)   Cited 212 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”
  10. Frye v. United States

    293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)   Cited 4,036 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to "admit expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs"
  11. Section 60.22 - Rules of evidence; corroboration of accomplice testimony

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 60.22   Cited 900 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 324 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 37 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