14 Cited authorities

Michelson v. United States
335 U.S. 469 (1948) Cited 1,402 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[o]nly a conviction . . . may be inquired about to undermine the trustworthiness of a witness"
U.S. v. Scarpa
913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 317 times
Holding that excited utterance need not be contemporaneous with startling event and finding statement made five or six hours after event admissible
United States v. Hayes
553 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1977) Cited 190 times
Holding that search of suspect's briefcase was lawful because there was probable cause for his arrest
U.S. v. Ramirez
609 F.3d 495 (2d Cir. 2010) Cited 58 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming district court's denial of a bill of particulars, where defendant could not identify which charge required clarification
Nibbs v. Goulart
822 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 27 times
Finding that plaintiff's "arrest history holds no value as impeachment material"
Williams v. McCarthy
05 Civ. 10230 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2007) Cited 24 times
Precluding indemnification from being presented to the jury, explaining that “[a]lthough defendants do not cite any Second Circuit law for this proposition, a number of courts have held that evidence of indemnification is inadmissible” and expressing agreement with those courts
Ligon v. City of New York
12 Civ. 2274 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 12, 2012) Cited 5 times
12 Civ. 2274 (SAS) 06-12-2012 JAENON LIGON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. Alexis Karteron, Esq. New York Civil Liberties Union For Defendants: Mark Zuckerman Senior Counsel New York City Law Department Shira A. Scheindlin MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, U.S.D.J.: This putative class action challenges the New York City Police Department's implementation of Operation Clean Halls, a program pursuant to which police officers patrol inside and around thousands
Miller v. United States
135 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 1998) Cited 12 times
No. 97-2651. Submitted January 13, 1998. Filed February 10, 1998 Rehearing Denied April 3, 1998. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Philip M. Horwitz of St. Louis, Missouri. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Antoinette Decker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, of St. Louis, Missouri. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Before LOKEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and KYLE, District Judge. The Honorable Richard
Rule 404 - Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
Fed. R. Evid. 404 Cited 16,758 times 65 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,502 times 35 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 402 Cited 6,707 times 11 Legal Analyses
Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court
Rule 609 - Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction
Fed. R. Evid. 609 Cited 4,405 times 14 Legal Analyses
Adopting a ten-year time limit, absent unusual circumstances, on the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes
Rule 608 - A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness
Fed. R. Evid. 608 Cited 3,004 times 16 Legal Analyses
Assuming it was otherwise admissible
Rule 611 - Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 611 Cited 1,899 times 7 Legal Analyses
Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination

Ligon et al v. City of New York et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding that "[o]nly a conviction . . . may be inquired about to undermine the trustworthiness of a witness"

Holding that excited utterance need not be contemporaneous with startling event and finding statement made five or six hours after event admissible

Holding that search of suspect's briefcase was lawful because there was probable cause for his arrest

Affirming district court's denial of a bill of particulars, where defendant could not identify which charge required clarification

Finding that plaintiff's "arrest history holds no value as impeachment material"

Precluding indemnification from being presented to the jury, explaining that “[a]lthough defendants do not cite any Second Circuit law for this proposition, a number of courts have held that evidence of indemnification is inadmissible” and expressing agreement with those courts

Recognizing that even uncharged similar acts can be probative of a defendant's intent and knowledge concerning charged offenses

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court

Adopting a ten-year time limit, absent unusual circumstances, on the use of prior convictions for impeachment purposes

Assuming it was otherwise admissible

Granting trial judge broad discretion to control witness examination