267 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,419 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,294 times 225 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (1995) Cited 7,265 times 36 Legal Analyses
Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,445 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
522 U.S. 136 (1997) Cited 4,863 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
Cavazos v. Smith
565 U.S. 1 (2011) Cited 2,191 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was "objectively unreasonable"
Atkins v. Virginia
536 U.S. 304 (2002) Cited 3,124 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (1976) Cited 10,607 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding prosecutors absolutely immune from damages liability for having knowingly presented perjured witness testimony against criminal defendants, observing that the "veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify . . . . If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, [they often would refrain from calling such witnesses and hence] the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevant evidence"
Herring v. United States
555 U.S. 135 (2009) Cited 2,085 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that the good-faith exception may apply "when police mistakes are the result of negligence ... rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements"
Giglio v. United States
405 U.S. 150 (1972) Cited 12,206 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that prosecution must disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses where witness's credibility is "an important issue in the case"
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,959 times 689 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,528 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,670 times 255 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,107 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Section 3006A - Adequate representation of defendants
18 U.S.C. § 3006A Cited 17,725 times 13 Legal Analyses
Granting defendants an ex parte forum to request reimbursement for supplemental services
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 16,678 times 65 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Rule 609 - Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
Fed. R. Evid. 609 Cited 4,379 times 14 Legal Analyses
Adopting a ten-year time limit, absent unusual circumstances, on the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes
Section 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
18 U.S.C. § 1512 Cited 4,335 times 41 Legal Analyses
Defining "law enforcement officer" as "an officer or employee of the Federal Government "
Section 38.22 - [Effective 1/1/2025] When Statements May Be Used
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 Cited 1,863 times 1 Legal Analyses
Governing the admission of statements made by an accused at trial
Section 1346 - Definition of "scheme or artifice to defraud"
18 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 1,290 times 55 Legal Analyses
Stating that term "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used inter alia in wire fraud statute, see id. § 1343, "includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"
Rule 9.140 - APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
Fla. R. App. P. 9.140 Cited 5,030 times
(a) Applicability. Appeal proceedings in criminal cases will be as in civil cases except as modified by this rule. (b) Appeals by Defendant. (1)Appeals Permitted. A defendant may appeal: (A) a final judgment adjudicating guilt; (B) a final order withholding adjudication after a finding of guilt; (C) an order granting probation or community control, or both, whether or not guilt has been adjudicated; (D) orders entered after final judgment or finding of guilt, including orders revoking or modifying
Rule 3.853 - MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION DNA TESTING
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.853 Cited 295 times
(a)Purpose. This rule provides procedures for obtaining DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing under sections 925.11 and 925.12, Florida Statutes. (b)Contents of Motion. The motion for postconviction DNA testing must be under oath and must include the following: (1) a statement of the facts relied upon in support of the motion, including a description of the physical evidence containing DNA to be tested and, if known, the present location or last known location of the evidence and how it originally

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

267 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

Holding that "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was "objectively unreasonable"

Holding that it violates the Eighth Amendment to execute intellectually disabled defendants

Holding that the good-faith exception may apply "when police mistakes are the result of negligence ... rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements"

Holding that prosecution must disclose all information or material that may be used to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses where witness's credibility is "an important issue in the case"

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Granting defendants an ex parte forum to request reimbursement for supplemental services

Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses

Adopting a ten-year time limit, absent unusual circumstances, on the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes

Defining "law enforcement officer" as "an officer or employee of the Federal Government "

Governing the admission of statements made by an accused at trial

Stating that term "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used inter alia in wire fraud statute, see id. § 1343, "includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services"