56 Cited authorities

Parker v. Gladden
385 U.S. 363 (1966) Cited 629 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the impartiality of the jury was tainted when a court bailiff expressed to a juror his personal opinion that the defendant was guilty
People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 571 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict
People v. Patterson
39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 433 times
In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.
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).
People v. Starling
85 N.Y.2d 509 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 190 times
Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"
People v. Kisoon
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 132 times
In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."
People v. Ahmed
66 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 208 times
In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.
People v. Becoats
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7306 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 95 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 934 N.Y.S.2d 737, 958 N.E.2d 865 (2011), defendant contended that the indictment was facially duplicitous.
People v. Ciaccio
47 N.Y.2d 431 (N.Y. 1979) Cited 229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that instructions given during jury deliberations "may well be determinative of the outcome of the case, coming as they do in response to questions raised by the jurors themselves"
People v. Arnold
98 N.Y.2d 63 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 116 times
In People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 (2002), the court added there is no absolute bar to a trial court asking a particular number of questions of a seated witness.

The People, Respondent,v.James Alcide, Appellant.

56 Cited authorities

Holding that the impartiality of the jury was tainted when a court bailiff expressed to a juror his personal opinion that the defendant was guilty

Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict

In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.

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).

Holding that "the statutory definition of the term [sell] conspicuously excludes any requirement that the transfer be commercial in nature or conducted for a particular type of benefit or underlying purpose"

In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."

In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.

In People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 934 N.Y.S.2d 737, 958 N.E.2d 865 (2011), defendant contended that the indictment was facially duplicitous.

Recognizing that instructions given during jury deliberations "may well be determinative of the outcome of the case, coming as they do in response to questions raised by the jurors themselves"

In People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 (2002), the court added there is no absolute bar to a trial court asking a particular number of questions of a seated witness.