§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. Barker v. Wingo

    407 U.S. 514 (1972)   Cited 11,578 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant who fails to demand speedy trial does not forever waive that constitutional right

  2. Zedner v. U.S.

    547 U.S. 489 (2006)   Cited 1,044 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant did not persuade the district court to hold that prospective waivers of Speedy Trial rights were valid because "it was the District Court that requested the waiver and produced the form for [him] to sign"

  3. United States v. Marion

    404 U.S. 307 (1971)   Cited 3,577 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process places some restraints on government delay in bringing an indictment

  4. People v. Kendzia

    64 N.Y.2d 331 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 585 times
    Holding that the time it takes to decide the defendant's speedy trial motion is excludable

  5. People v. Berkowitz

    50 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 557 times
    Holding that a conspiracy defendant whose sole alleged co-conspirator had been previously acquitted of the conspiracy charge could not utilize the doctrine of collateral estoppel as a bar to his own prosecution because that there will often be significant disparities in the proof available against each of two separately tried defendants and a verdict of acquittal is not necessarily a determination of innocence

  6. People v. England

    84 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 261 times
    Finding a "ready for trial" statement insufficient to meet speedy trial requirements when, due to failure to obtain indictment within six months, trial not possible

  7. People v. Santos

    68 N.Y.2d 859 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 298 times

    Argued September 10, 1986 Decided October 14, 1986 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Alfred H. Kleiman, J. Oren Root, Jr., and Patrick M. Wall for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Jeffrey Scott Sarokin and Norman Barclay of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to the extent of remitting the case to Supreme Court, New York County, for a hearing on the branch of defendant's

  8. People v. Lomax

    50 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 294 times
    In Lomax, the "defendant's papers contained averments which indicated that there were several periods of time following his first arraignment during which the criminal action against him was delayed due to pretrial motions that had been made by the defense."

  9. People v. Stirrup

    91 N.Y.2d 434 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 165 times
    Stating that criminal court obtains personal jurisdiction over defendant upon filing of accusatory instrument and defendant's appearance in court

  10. People v. Carter

    91 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 155 times
    In Carter, the court considered the implications of sending a statement of readiness to the wrong address for three defendants and found that the prosecution had attempted to notify the defendants at their last known address and "[i]n the absence of proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People's position or that the mailing was made in bad faith, the People had discharged their duty under CPL 30.30" (seeCarter at 799, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523, 699 N.E.2d 35 [emphasis added]).