§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of P. David Soares,, Respondent,v.William A. Carter,, Appellant, Colin Donnaruma et al., Respondents.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Saratoga Cty. Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki

    100 N.Y.2d 801 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 636 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that approval of Indian gaming compact by the governor usurped the power of the legislature and violated the state constitution and the separation of powers doctrine

  2. People v. Swamp

    84 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 243 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that C.P.L. § 190.30 authorizes the prosecution to submit to the grand jury a certified laboratory report in place of the live testimony of the technician who performed tests on a controlled substance

  3. People v. Yut Wai Tom

    53 N.Y.2d 44 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 283 times
    In Yut Wai Tom, "the most prejudicial conduct of the Trial Judge... was his constant interruption of defense counsel's cross-examination to ask questions which would only be proper as redirect examination if asked by the prosecutor" (Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d at 59).

  4. People v. Clayton

    41 A.D.2d 204 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973)   Cited 329 times
    Finding the use of § 210.40 "depended only on principles of justice, not on the legal or factual merits of the charge or even on the guilt or innocence of the defendant"

  5. People v. Moulton

    43 N.Y.2d 944 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 221 times

    Submitted January 9, 1978 Decided February 22, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EDWARD S. LENTOL, J. Robert S. Katz and William E. Hellerstein for appellant. Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Cynthia Kean of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order should be affirmed. The role of a Trial Judge in a criminal case is not merely that of an observer or even that of a referee enforcing the rules of a game (see People v De Jesus, 42 N

  6. 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"

  7. People v. De Jesus

    42 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 191 times
    In DeJesus, the New York Court of Appeals had held that a trial judge's excessive intervention had denied a criminal defendant of a fair trial.

  8. People v. Savvides

    1 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1956)   Cited 245 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where witness for the prosecution falsely testified that there was no agreement that he was to receive lenient treatment for testifying against defendant, Assistant District Attorney should have exposed the lie of the witness

  9. Soares v. Herrick

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8055 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 38 times
    In Soares, the District Attorney of Albany County stated his intention not to prosecute a case in which he did not believe.

  10. People v. Extale

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2247 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 36 times
    Rejecting claim that prosecutor can “choose not to proceed with” a charged count