69 Cited authorities

Holmes v. South Carolina
547 U.S. 319 (2006) Cited 1,899 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"
Smith v. Phillips
455 U.S. 209 (1982) Cited 4,855 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias
Chambers v. Mississippi
410 U.S. 284 (1973) Cited 5,980 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable
People v. Gray
86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 3,232 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review
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"
Rivas v. Fischer
687 F.3d 514 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 506 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that press coverage was sufficient to put the petitioner on notice of the factual predicate for his claim
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.
7 N.Y.3d 434 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 378 times 27 Legal Analyses
Finding that "standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective measures are inadequate to demonstrate legal causation"
People v. Wesley
83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994) Cited 443 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."
Hoffler v. Bezio
726 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) Cited 217 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that a COA is required
Frye v. United States
293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) Cited 4,502 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted
Section 470.05 - Determination of appeals; general criteria
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.05 Cited 14,282 times
Providing that a question of law is presented when "a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling . . . or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same."
Section 440.10 - Motion to vacate judgment
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10 Cited 9,045 times 6 Legal Analyses
Stating that the court “must deny” a § 440.10 motion when sufficient facts appear on the record to permit appellate review of the claim and the defendant unjustifiably failed to raise that issue on direct appeal
Section 330.30 - Motion to set aside verdict; grounds for
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 330.30 Cited 1,970 times
At any time after rendition of a verdict of guilty and before sentence, the court may, upon motion of the defendant, set aside or modify the verdict or any part thereof upon the following grounds: 1. Any ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court. 2. That during the trial there occurred, out of the presence of the court, improper conduct
Section 60.35 - Rules of evidence; impeachment of own witness by proof of prior contradictory statement
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 60.35 Cited 354 times
Allowing party to impeach own witness through prior statement where witness "gives testimony upon a material issue of the case which tends to disprove the position of such party"

The People, Respondent,v.Anthony Oddone, Appellant.

69 Cited authorities

Holding that a rule that categorically barred evidence of third-party guilt when strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt was presented "is arbitrary in the sense that it does not rationally serve the end that ... [it was] designed to further"

Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias

Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

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"

Holding that press coverage was sufficient to put the petitioner on notice of the factual predicate for his claim

Finding that "standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective measures are inadequate to demonstrate legal causation"

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."

Concluding that a COA is required

Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

Providing that a question of law is presented when "a protest thereto was registered, by the party claiming error, at the time of such ruling . . . or at any subsequent time when the court had an opportunity of effectively changing the same."

Stating that the court “must deny” a § 440.10 motion when sufficient facts appear on the record to permit appellate review of the claim and the defendant unjustifiably failed to raise that issue on direct appeal

Allowing party to impeach own witness through prior statement where witness "gives testimony upon a material issue of the case which tends to disprove the position of such party"