§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

22 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Antommarchi

    80 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 541 times
    Recognizing a defendant's right to be present at sidebar conferences during jury selection

  2. People v. Pavao

    59 N.Y.2d 282 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 625 times
    In People v Pavao (59 N.Y.2d 282) the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in permitting a prosecutor to cross-examine a defendant regarding crimes charged in a pending indictment.

  3. People v. Velasco

    77 N.Y.2d 469 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 280 times
    Holding that defendant's presence not required for charging conference in robing room attended by attorneys for both sides involving only questions of law and procedure

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. People v. Castillo

    80 N.Y.2d 578 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 176 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Approving ex parte, in camera review of a search warrant application, where the judge personally examined the informer at a suppression hearing

  7. 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.

  8. People v. McLean

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4872 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 79 times

    113. Decided on June 10, 2010. Danielle Neroni Reilly, for appellant. Gerald A. Dwyer, for respondent. Judges Graffeo, Read and Pigott concur. Judge Jones dissents and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Ciparick concur. Opinion by Judge SMITH. We have held that, where a defendant's statement to law enforcement authorities is obtained in violation of his right to counsel, the use of that statement against defendant at trial is an error that may be raised on appeal

  9. People v. Spotford

    85 N.Y.2d 593 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 93 times
    In People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y. 2d 593, 596 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals held that a criminal defendant has a right, under New York law, to be present at a Ventimiglia hearing.

  10. People v. Sprowal

    84 N.Y.2d 113 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 88 times
    In Sprowal the Court of Appeals, continuing its analysis of the retroactivity of People v Antommarchi (80 N.Y.2d 247), which it began in People v Mitchell (supra), explained that while the right to be present may be "rooted in [Federal] due process concerns," the source of the right to be present at sidebar conferences was statutorily located.