§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,400 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 3,548 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

  3. Bullcoming v. New Mexico

    564 U.S. 647 (2011)   Cited 1,547 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial

  4. Arizona v. Youngblood

    488 U.S. 51 (1988)   Cited 3,868 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"

  5. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,685 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"

  6. People v. Luperon

    85 N.Y.2d 71 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 339 times
    Finding an issue unpreserved because the legal grounds presented to the trial court in favor of a requested ruling differed from the legal grounds raised on appeal regarding the same ruling

  7. People v. Kelly

    62 N.Y.2d 516 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 299 times
    Applying New York rule, which parallels federal rule; concluding that dismissal was an abuse of discretion where adverse inference instruction would have adequately remedied prejudice caused by government's destruction of evidence

  8. People v. Julian

    41 N.Y.2d 340 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 369 times
    In People v Julian (41 N.Y.2d 340 [involving various drugs]), Amaro v City of New York (40 N.Y.2d 30 [involving a blood sample]) and People v Connelly (35 N.Y.2d 171 [involving cocaine]), the problem was one of establishing that the substance which had been delivered for analysis (i.e., the "green vegetable matter" or "white powder" in People v Julian [supra] and People v Connelly [supra]; and the blood in Amaro v City of New York [supra]) was in fact a sample of the substance seized or purchased, or the blood taken.

  9. 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

  10. People v. Rawlins

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1420 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 140 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 30.10 applied even though defendant was not identified through a DNA match and indicted until eight years after the crime