83 Cited authorities

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (1963) Cited 43,434 times 133 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence
United States v. Bagley
473 U.S. 667 (1985) Cited 9,435 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,491 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Neil v. Biggers
409 U.S. 188 (1972) Cited 7,389 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding identification occurring seven months after crime was reliable
Manson v. Brathwaite
432 U.S. 98 (1977) Cited 5,591 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure
Griffith v. Kentucky
479 U.S. 314 (1987) Cited 3,329 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that on direct review, a new constitutional rule must be applied retroactively "to all cases, state or federal"
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
480 U.S. 39 (1987) Cited 2,675 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"
Simmons v. United States
390 U.S. 377 (1968) Cited 6,456 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"
Stovall v. Denno
388 U.S. 293 (1967) Cited 5,309 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
Weatherford v. Bursey
429 U.S. 545 (1977) Cited 2,336 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses

PEOPLE v. MENA

83 Cited authorities

Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

Holding that there was a Brady violation when federal prosecutors withheld evidence of inducements made to witnesses to encourage them to testify against the defendant

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding identification occurring seven months after crime was reliable

Holding that, if police procedures are unduly suggestive, identification will be excluded if its reliability does not outweigh corrupting influence of suggestive procedure

Holding that on direct review, a new constitutional rule must be applied retroactively "to all cases, state or federal"

Holding that "criminal defendants have the right to the government’s assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses at trial and the right to put before a jury evidence that might influence the determination of guilt"

Holding that defendant's testimony to establish standing for purposes of claiming a Fourth Amendment violation "should not be admissible against him at trial on the question of guilt or innocence"

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

Holding that a defendant in a non-capital case has no right to discover lists of prospective government witnesses