55 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,647 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,647 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Smith v. Phillips
455 U.S. 209 (1982) Cited 4,854 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias
State v. Danielson
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9814 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 9,462 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"
Crane v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 683 (1986) Cited 3,284 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"
Davis v. Alaska
415 U.S. 308 (1974) Cited 5,691 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike
People v. Bleakley
69 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 11,303 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"
People v. Contes
60 N.Y.2d 620 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 11,959 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"
California v. Green
399 U.S. 149 (1970) Cited 2,915 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"
People v. Benevento
91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 4,215 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."

The People, Respondent,v.Mark Boyd, Appellant.

55 Cited authorities

Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias

Holding a "legally sufficient verdict can be against the weight of the evidence"

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"

Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

Holding that the Appellate Division committed reversible error when it "avoid[ed] its exclusive statutory authority to review the weight of the evidence in criminal cases"

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 "the Confrontation Clause does not require excluding from evidence the prior statements of a witness who concedes making those statements"

In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."