16 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Wade

    388 U.S. 218 (1967)   Cited 7,437 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated
  2. Stovall v. Denno

    388 U.S. 293 (1967)   Cited 5,161 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suggestive show-up was "imperative" where it was not clear how long the person making the identification would live; she was not able to visit the jail; taking the defendant to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure; and a line-up at the police station was not possible
  3. Gilbert v. California

    388 U.S. 263 (1967)   Cited 3,034 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the taking of handwriting exemplars is a form of compulsion within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, but that, "A mere handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection" because it is not the kind of "communication" covered by the privilege
  4. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,175 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"
  5. People v. Rodriguez

    79 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 475 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."
  6. People v. Gissendanner

    48 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 679 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gissendanner, the court reviewed a lower court's denial of a defendant's request to issue a subpoena for the police personnel files of prosecution witnesses.
  7. People v. Wharton

    74 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 283 times
    In People v. Wharton (74 NY2d 921, 922-923), we explained that a trained police officer's identification of a defendant "at a place and time sufficiently connected and contemporaneous to the arrest itself as to constitute the ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure" was not the sort of event "ordinarily burdened or compromised by forbidden suggestiveness, warranting a lineup procedure or Wade hearing."
  8. People v. Boyer

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2290 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 58 times
    Rejecting appellant's contention that persistent violent felony offender statute is unconstitutional under Apprendi principles
  9. People v. Rodriguez

    100 N.Y.2d 30 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 60 times
    In People v. Rodriguez, 100 N.Y.2d 30, 760 N.Y.S.2d 74 (2003), the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict based on juror misconduct, but noted that the trial court had determined to deny the motion only after holding a hearing.
  10. People v. Newball

    76 N.Y.2d 587 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 79 times
    In Newball, the defendant objected to the testimony of an undercover officer claiming that the officer had made a previous identification of defendant and the People did not serve a CPL 710.30 notice.