38 Cited authorities

  1. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 1,833 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a new Supreme Court opinion overturning a previous standard was unforeseeable
  2. 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."
  3. People v. Cortes

    80 N.Y.2d 201 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 372 times
    In Cortes that "break" was the period between the dismissal of the first indictment and the filing of the second indictment.
  4. 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"
  5. People C v. Legrand

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2588 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 194 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding ban on expert testimony inappropriate due to advances in scientific research
  6. People v. Anderson

    66 N.Y.2d 529 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 356 times
    Stating that C.P.L. § 30.30, setting forth time limitations in which People must be ready for trial, addresses only problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a "Speedy Trial" statute in the constitutional sense
  7. Matter of Lahey v. Kelly

    71 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 315 times
    Distinguishing cases holding that single unconfirmed test are not sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process
  8. People v. Worley

    66 N.Y.2d 523 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 241 times
    In People v Worley (66 N.Y.2d 523, 526), the Court of Appeals indicated that its holding in Sturgis was based on the fact that the People had inexcusably failed to file an indictment within six months following the filing of the felony complaint.
  9. People v. Sibblies

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2377 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 86 times
    Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records
  10. People v. Carter

    91 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 127 times
    In People v Carter (91 NY2d 795, 799 [1998]), the New York State Court of Appeals held that where the defendant was indicted and the People served a pre-arraignment statement of readiness to the defendants' last known address, that notwithstanding that the defendant had moved and that the defendant's last known address was not the defendant's then current correct address, the notice was valid.