§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Austin Cornelius, Appellant.

Brief

34 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,406 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

  2. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 3,549 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

  3. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,472 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. Davis v. Alaska

    415 U.S. 308 (1974)   Cited 5,689 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike

  5. People v. Mateo

    2 N.Y.3d 383 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 3,446 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding criminal liability attaches to "a person concerned in the commission of a crime whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission . . ."

  6. People v. Caban

    5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 1,638 times
    Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

  7. People v. Sandoval

    34 N.Y.2d 371 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 2,458 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court must balance the "probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant's credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant"

  8. People v. Kello

    96 N.Y.2d 740 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that hearsay objection alone was insufficient to preserve Confrontation Clause objection

  9. People v. Melendez

    55 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 309 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defense's cross-examination had "open[ed] the door" to some, but not all, of the hearsay testimony: it was appropriate for the detective to repeat the statements of the informant about a witness, showing that the police suspicion of him resulted from mistaken identity, but not the informant's accusation of defendant

  10. People v. Brown

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8475 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 137 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "defendant's [statute of limitations] motion would have been meritless" under the tolling provision in C.P.L. § 30.10 and his counsel was not ineffective in raising it because the defendants identity could not have been known until the cold hit was made through the DNA backlog project