54 Cited authorities

Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
412 U.S. 218 (1973) Cited 11,956 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,284 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Arizona v. Washington
434 U.S. 497 (1978) Cited 1,824 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,684 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. Gonzalez
68 N.Y.2d 424 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 984 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v Gonzalez (68 NY2d 424 [1986]), we set forth the conditions necessary to warrant a missing witness charge and a burden-shifting analysis to determine whether those conditions are met.
People v. Savinon
100 N.Y.2d 192 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 233 times
Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a missing witness instruction in favor of the prosecution where "under either side's version of the alleged crime, defendant was so bonded with [the missing witness] as to have had sex with the complainant with [the missing witness] nearby"
People v. Morris
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6633 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 173 times
Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant
People v. Anderson
42 N.Y.2d 35 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 467 times
Holding that incommunicado detention for nineteen hours during which defendant was deprived of sleep and food while interrogators worked in relays was coercive and "the use of his confession offends due process"
People v. Santiago
52 N.Y.2d 865 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 382 times
Holding that the failure to make "an application seeking further or more complete instructions" precluded defendant from "assert[ing] the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal"

The People, Respondent,v.Michael Johnson, Appellant.

54 Cited authorities

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding the State need not prove knowing-and-deliberate consent to search

Holding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”

Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record

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 People v Gonzalez (68 NY2d 424 [1986]), we set forth the conditions necessary to warrant a missing witness charge and a burden-shifting analysis to determine whether those conditions are met.

Holding that evidence of a 911 call accusing defendant of robbing someone at gunpoint was relevant background information that helped explain the aggressive conduct of police when arresting the defendant

Holding that incommunicado detention for nineteen hours during which defendant was deprived of sleep and food while interrogators worked in relays was coercive and "the use of his confession offends due process"

Holding that the failure to make "an application seeking further or more complete instructions" precluded defendant from "assert[ing] the inadequacy of such instructions as error on appeal"