§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Andre Harrison, Appellant.

Brief

54 Cited authorities

  1. Coleman v. Thompson

    501 U.S. 722 (1991)   Cited 26,221 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Holding in relevant part that federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim is barred "unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law"

  2. Pennsylvania v. Finley

    481 U.S. 551 (1987)   Cited 6,986 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that States need not provide appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings

  3. People v. Romero

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8640 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 4,926 times

    No. 151. Argued October 18, 2006. Decided November 21, 2006. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 11, 2005. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of two counts of murder in the second degree. People v. Romero, 22 AD3d 287, affirmed. Center

  4. People v. Alvino

    71 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 1,068 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence of similar uncharged crimes is excluded for policy reasons because it may induce the jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters

  5. People v. Mendoza

    82 N.Y.2d 415 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 530 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that based on state statute, a defendant making a motion to suppress evidence must plead precise facts demonstrating an expectation of privacy, while a defendant need not do so when challenging a pretrial identification because "in many instances defendant simply does not know the facts surrounding certain pretrial identification procedures, such as photo arrays . . . [whereas it is a] defendant alone who actually knows his or her connection with the searched area"

  6. Murden v. Artuz

    497 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 337 times
    Holding that § 440.10(c) is both adequate and independent, and thus that petitioner's claim was "procedurally barred from federal review"

  7. Thornton v. Snyder

    428 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 250 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in conducting trial by video conference where inmate-witnesses were "scattered all over the state"

  8. People v. Stevens

    91 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 143 times
    In People v Stevens (91 NY2d 270) and People v Kearns (95 NY2d 816), we held that the registration and notification requirements of SORA — regardless whether the specific risk level determination was made at the time of sentencing or post-judgment — are not a "traditional, technical or integral part of a sentence" that becomes incorporated within the judgment of conviction (Stevens, 91 NY2d at 276; Kearns, 95 NY2d at 818).

  9. People v. Wrotten

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9267 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that “the public policy of justly resolving criminal cases while at the same time protecting the well-being of a witness can require live two-way video testimony in the rare case where a key witness cannot physically travel to court in New York and where, as here, defendant's confrontation rights have been minimally impaired”

  10. People v. Drayton

    39 N.Y.2d 580 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 160 times
    In Drayton, the Court reasoned, inter alia, that, since defendant's felony case properly began in superior court, his later plea of guilty to a misdemeanor should not divest the superior court Judge of statutory discretion to deny Y.O. treatment.

  11. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,702 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"