§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Lee Carr, Appellant.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Kentucky v. Stincer

    482 U.S. 730 (1987)   Cited 1,584 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process

  2. People v. Favor

    82 N.Y.2d 254 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 247 times
    Holding right to be present at Sandoval hearing conferred by state law

  3. People v. Darby

    75 N.Y.2d 449 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 231 times
    In People v Darby (75 N.Y.2d 449), the Court of Appeals clarified the scope and reach of Mullen and Buford, by holding that the "unique, indispensable presence of at least the `single-minded counsel for the accused' (People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 290 [cert denied 368 U.S. 866]) is minimally necessary to safeguard that fundamental fairness to defendant" (People v Darby, supra, at 454 [emphasis added]) during the in-camera questioning of a juror.

  4. People v. Parks

    41 N.Y.2d 36 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 244 times
    In People v. Parks (41 N.Y.2d 36, supra), the Court of Appeals indicated that where the mental health of the victim of a crime is a critical issue in the case, then it was permissible, in the trial court's discretion, to allow the testimony of an individual who had personal familiarity with the victim.

  5. People v. Morales

    80 N.Y.2d 450 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 134 times
    In Morales, the issue before the Court was whether it was reversible error to exclude the defendant when the court preliminarily examined a child witness to determine whether she understood the nature of an oath.

  6. People v. Fabricio

    3 N.Y.3d 402 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 53 times

    162. Argued October 21, 2004. Decided December 2, 2004. Appeal, 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 August 28, 2003. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first and second degrees. People v. Fabricio, 307 AD2d 882, affirmed. Office

  7. People v. Frost

    100 N.Y.2d 129 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that the state advanced an "overriding interest" justifying partial courtroom closure based on witness's "legitimate fear" of testifying in open court

  8. People v. Wardlaw

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2455 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 42 times
    In Wardlaw, the Court held that the right to counsel is "indeed very important" but that "deprivations of important constitutional rights do not require a remedy when it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that they did not contribute to a conviction.

  9. People v. Rensing

    14 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 1964)   Cited 79 times
    In People v Rensing (14 N.Y.2d 210, 214), after sentencing it was disclosed that Rensing's codefendant, who gave damaging testimony against him at trial, was insane at the time and had a long history of mental illness.

  10. Matter of Brown v. Ristich

    36 N.Y.2d 183 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 52 times

    Argued January 8, 1975 Decided February 25, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General ( Shirley Adelson Siegel and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), for appellant. William P. Volin for respondent. GABRIELLI, J. The question presented is whether unsworn testimony may be received and given effect in an administrative disciplinary proceeding under section 75 of the Civil Service Law. The problem arises out of

  11. Section 670.10 - Repealed

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 670.10   Cited 34 times

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 670.10