§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Everett M. Durant, Appellant.

Brief

16 Cited authorities

  1. Arizona v. Youngblood

    488 U.S. 51 (1988)   Cited 3,866 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law"

  2. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,683 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"

  3. 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.

  4. Clewis v. Texas

    386 U.S. 707 (1967)   Cited 470 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding third confession suspect gave, nine days after being arrested, was involuntary because there was "no break in the stream of events" beginning when police first arrested the suspect

  5. People v. Whalen

    59 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 446 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Whalen, the defendant argued that identification evidence is "always suspect, so that, when a trial involves a close question of identity, the jury should receive an instruction emphasizing the scrutiny to be given to such evidence.

  6. Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista

    442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004)   Cited 188 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when the prosecution introduces evidence of a defendant's custodial confession and there is not an audio recording of the complete interrogation, upon request, the defendant is entitled to a cautionary instruction "that the State's highest court has expressed a preference that such interrogations be recorded," and the jury should weigh "the evidence of the defendant's alleged statement with great caution and care"

  7. People v. Thomas

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1208 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 101 times
    In Thomas, the New York state appellate court, unconstrained by the deferential review required under the AEDPA, ruled that, because the defendant's custodial interrogation was coercive, his motion to suppress statements was granted and a new trial ordered.

  8. People v. Kitching

    78 N.Y.2d 532 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 184 times

    Argued October 17, 1991 Decided November 26, 1991 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Pearle Appelman, J. Robert P. App and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant. John J. Santucci, District Attorney (Stephanie D. Schwartz and Spiros A. Tsimbinos of counsel), for respondent. HANCOCK, JR., J. Defendant was arrested for selling $10 worth of crack/cocaine to an undercover officer. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled

  9. People v. Handy

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2103 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 81 times
    In Handy, a police surveillance system created a series of images depicting a portion of the defendant's alleged jailhouse assault on some sheriff's deputies, and those images remained in the possession of the police (see id. at 666, 966 N.Y.S.2d 351, 988 N.E.2d 879).

  10. People v. Joseph

    86 N.Y.2d 565 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 87 times
    Noting "the need for a precise correlation between the undisclosed and disclosed material" to consider the possibility that the documents may be duplicative equivalents, and therefore, holding that "a document that has been lost or destroyed and is therefore no longer available for judicial inspection cannot be deemed the `duplicative equivalent' of Rosario material that has previously been disclosed"