§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

151 Cited authorities

  1. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 4,853 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

  2. Los Angeles v. Lyons

    461 U.S. 95 (1983)   Cited 7,494 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding there is no justiciable controversy where plaintiff had once been subjected to a chokehold

  3. Holmes v. South Carolina

    547 U.S. 319 (2006)   Cited 1,897 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"

  4. Smith v. Phillips

    455 U.S. 209 (1982)   Cited 4,848 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

  5. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 4,131 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

  6. Payne v. Tennessee

    501 U.S. 808 (1991)   Cited 2,608 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

  7. Chambers v. Mississippi

    410 U.S. 284 (1973)   Cited 5,976 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

  8. Rock v. Arkansas

    483 U.S. 44 (1987)   Cited 2,829 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a rule that categorically barred all hypnotically refreshed testimony "is an arbitrary restriction ... in the absence of clear evidence by the State repudiating the validity of all posthypnosis recollections"

  9. Burks v. United States

    437 U.S. 1 (1978)   Cited 3,828 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court is "not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal"

  10. Griffin v. California

    380 U.S. 609 (1965)   Cited 4,840 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecutor may not comment on a defendant's failure to testify

  11. Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

    U.S. Const. amend. VI   Cited 28,093 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

  12. Section Amendment V - Rights of Persons

    U.S. Const. amend. V   Cited 19,272 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that crimes be prosecuted on a presentment or indictment

  13. Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV   Cited 11,396 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

  14. Section 460.20 - Certificate granting leave to appeal to court of appeals

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 460.20   Cited 3,815 times
    Granting judges of the Court of Appeals discretion to hear criminal appeals from the Appellate Division

  15. Section 330.30 - Motion to set aside verdict; grounds for

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 330.30   Cited 1,965 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

  16. Section 1235 - Prior inconsistent statements

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1235   Cited 946 times
    Providing hearsay exception for prior inconsistent statements

  17. Section 270.35 - Trial jury; discharge of juror; replacement by alternate juror

    N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 270.35   Cited 790 times

    1. If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or for any other reason is unavailable for continued service, or the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature, but not warranting the declaration of a mistrial, the court must discharge

  18. Section 770 - Extrinsic evidence of inconsistent statement

    Cal. Evid. Code § 770   Cited 435 times
    Permitting admission of statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony if "[t]he witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement"

  19. 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"

  20. Section 70.70 - Sentence of imprisonment for felony drug offender other than a class A felony

    N.Y. Penal Law § 70.70   Cited 249 times
    Providing that maximum sentence for Class C drug felony committed by someone in worst criminal history class is nine years

  21. Rule 607 - Witness Impeachment. Support, and Neutralization

    N.J.R.E. 607   Cited 142 times

    (a) For or the purpose of attacking or supporting the credibility of a witness, any party including the party calling the witness may examine the witness and introduce extrinsic evidence relevant to the issue of credibility, subject to the exceptions in (a)(1) and (2). (1) This provision is subject to Rules 405 and 608. (2) The party calling a witness may not neutralize the witness' testimony by a prior contradictory statement unless the statement is in a form admissible under Rule 803(a)(1) or the

  22. Rule 607 - Who May Impeach

    Ill. R. Evid. 607   Cited 22 times

    The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness, except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of affirmative damage. The foregoing exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Rules 801(d)(1)(A), 801(d)(1)(B), 801(d)(2), or 803. Ill. R. Evid. 607 Adopted September 27, 2010, eff. 1/1/2011.

  23. Rule 607 - Impeachment

    Ohio R. Evid. 607   Cited 17 times

    (A)Who may impeach The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage. This exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(a), 801(D)(2), or 803. (B)Impeachment: reasonable basis A questioner must have a reasonable basis for asking any question pertaining to impeachment that

  24. Rule 607 - Who may impeach.

    R.I. R. Evid. 607   Cited 6 times

    The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness, except that the party calling the witness shall not impeach the witness' credit by evidence of bad character unless, in the view of the trial justice, the interests of justice so require. R.I. R. Evid. 607

  25. Section 6-4 - Who May Impeach

    Conn. R. Evid. 6-4   Cited 5 times

    The credibility of a witness may be impeached by any party, including the party calling the witness, unless the court determines that a party's impeachment of its own witness is primarily for the purpose of introducing otherwise inadmissible evidence. Conn. Code. Evid. 6-4 Amended Dec. 14, 2017, to take effect 2/1/2018. COMMENTARY Section 6-4 reflects the rule announced in State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9, 17-18, 509 A.2d 493 (1986). In Graham, the Supreme Court abandoned the common-law ''voucher'' rule;