§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Robert Pealer, Appellant.

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,394 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. Davis v. Washington

    547 U.S. 813 (2006)   Cited 4,794 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

  3. Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts

    557 U.S. 305 (2009)   Cited 3,545 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a certification that material seized by the police included cocaine was testimonial

  4. Bullcoming v. New Mexico

    564 U.S. 647 (2011)   Cited 1,545 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding a certification of the blood alcohol content of a sample to be testimonial

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman

    60 N.Y.2d 46 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 237 times
    In Matter of Schumer v Holtzman (60 N.Y.2d 46, 55), a case involving removal, we held that generally a public prosecutor should not be removed unless necessary to protect a defendant from "actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence" (id.; see also, People v Herr, 86 N.Y.2d 638; People v Jackson, supra).

  8. People v. Di Falco

    44 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 212 times
    Noting "breadth and importance of the duties placed upon the District Attorney in Grand Jury proceedings"

  9. Matter of Haggerty v. Himelein

    89 N.Y.2d 431 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 56 times

    Argued January 8, 1997 Decided February 6, 1997 APPEALS, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered May 31, 1996, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted the petition to the extent of prohibiting Larry M. Himelein, as Cattaraugus County Court Judge, and Michael P. Nevins, as Cattaraugus County District Attorney, from proceeding with the trial of indictment No. 95-168, and prohibiting

  10. People v. Jacobs

    405 Ill. App. 3d 210 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 32 times
    Relying on Bergin, 231 Or.App. 36, 217 P.3d 1087

  11. Section 59.4 - Breath analysis instruments

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 59.4   Cited 45 times
    Listing the "conforming products: for "evidential breath [alcohol] measurement devices"