§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

29 Cited authorities

  1. Medina v. California

    505 U.S. 437 (1992)   Cited 1,287 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Due Process Clause has limited operation beyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights

  2. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,097 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  3. Snyder v. Massachusetts

    291 U.S. 97 (1934)   Cited 2,460 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant had no right of presence at jury’s viewing of the crime scene because he couldn’t have gained anything from being there

  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. Anderson

    66 N.Y.2d 529 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 380 times
    Stating that C.P.L. § 30.30, setting forth time limitations in which People must be ready for trial, addresses only problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a "Speedy Trial" statute in the constitutional sense

  6. 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

  7. 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]).

  8. People v. Sibblies

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2377 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 93 times
    Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records

  9. People v. Caussade

    162 A.D.2d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 108 times
    In People v. Caussade, 162 A.D.2d 4, 8, 560 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2d Dept, 1990), app den76 N.Y.2d 984, 563 N.Y.S.2d 772 (1990), the “court specifically held that the failure of a District Attorney to comply with the mandates of CPL article 240... is in no way inconsistent with the prosecutor's continued readiness for trial.” See, also, People v. Saunders, 8 Misc.3d 214, 217, 797 N.Y.S.2d 268 (Crim Ct, Kings Cty 2005), citing Caussade, 162 A.D.2d at 8.

  10. People v. Poole

    48 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 145 times
    In People v. Poole, 48 NY2d 144 [1979], a case cited by the People, the Court was concerned with whether defense counsel has the right to inspect a prosecutor's file to determine if Rosario material exists.