26 Cited authorities

Deck v. Missouri
544 U.S. 622 (2005) Cited 1,171 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution "prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial"
Estelle v. Williams
425 U.S. 501 (1976) Cited 2,144 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that requiring a defendant to wear prison clothes at trial violates due process
Irvin v. Dowd
366 U.S. 717 (1961) Cited 3,668 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that eight jurors’ predisposed opinions as to guilt based on adverse pre-trial publicity violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury
Sheppard v. Maxwell
384 U.S. 333 (1966) Cited 2,248 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that media coverage contributed to due process violation in murder trial that "intrigue[d] and captivate[d] the public fancy to a degree perhaps unparalleled in recent annals"
People v. Hawkins
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9254 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 1,877 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,689 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"
Rideau v. Louisiana
373 U.S. 723 (1963) Cited 1,059 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that media coverage was prejudicial when a 20–minute film of a defendant's confession had been shown on television three times prior to trial
People v. Johnson
94 N.Y.2d 600 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 240 times 6 Legal Analyses
Argued February 23, 2000 Decided April 13, 2000. Appeal in the first above-entitled action, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered November 10, 1998. Appeal in the second above-entitled action, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that court, entered November 10, 1998. Appeal in the third above-entitled action
People v. Stevens
76 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 217 times
Disapproving of the use of "in life" photos as part of a "before-and-after" comparison with autopsy photos unless relevant to a material fact at issue
People v. Edwards
95 N.Y.2d 486 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 129 times
In People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876 (2000), the Court of Appeals reached the merits of a probable cause issue, decided by the trial court at the close of a suppression hearing.

The People, Respondent,v.Joel Nelson, Appellant.

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the Constitution "prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial"

Holding that requiring a defendant to wear prison clothes at trial violates due process

Holding that eight jurors’ predisposed opinions as to guilt based on adverse pre-trial publicity violated the defendant's right to an impartial jury

Holding that media coverage contributed to due process violation in murder trial that "intrigue[d] and captivate[d] the public fancy to a degree perhaps unparalleled in recent annals"

Holding that to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must move for a trial order of dismissal, and the argument must be "specifically directed" at the error being argued

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"

Holding that media coverage was prejudicial when a 20–minute film of a defendant's confession had been shown on television three times prior to trial

Disapproving of the use of "in life" photos as part of a "before-and-after" comparison with autopsy photos unless relevant to a material fact at issue

In People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876 (2000), the Court of Appeals reached the merits of a probable cause issue, decided by the trial court at the close of a suppression hearing.