34 Cited authorities

Manson v. Brathwaite
432 U.S. 98 (1977) Cited 5,591 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure
United States v. Wade
388 U.S. 218 (1967) Cited 8,072 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
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S. 377 (1968) Cited 6,456 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,689 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"
People v. Ford
86 N.Y.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 1,246 times 3 Legal Analyses
In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.
State v. Henderson
208 N.J. 208 (N.J. 2011) Cited 704 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial
People v. Peque
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7651 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 626 times
Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea
People v. Chipp
75 N.Y.2d 327 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 1,102 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the circumstances presented therein, defendant could not call the complaining witness at a pretrial suppression motion
People v. Rodriguez
79 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 643 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."
People v. LeGrand
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2588 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 205 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the principles expounded by the defense expert witness on weapon focus were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community

The People, Respondent,v.Kaity Marshall, Appellant.

34 Cited authorities

Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure

Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"

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"

In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.

Holding a jury instruction on cross-racial identification should be given whenever cross-racial identification is in issue at trial

Holding that New York trial courts must inform the defendant of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and that a failure to do so could provide a basis for withdrawing or vacating the guilty plea

Holding that under the circumstances presented therein, defendant could not call the complaining witness at a pretrial suppression motion

Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."

Holding that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the principles expounded by the defense expert witness on weapon focus were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community