29 Cited authorities

  1. Medina v. California

    505 U.S. 437 (1992)   Cited 1,062 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 1,872 times   28 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 2,296 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 501 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 359 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 138 times
    Stating that criminal court obtains personal jurisdiction over defendant upon filing of accusatory instrument and defendant's appearance in court
  7. People v. Sibblies

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2377 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 82 times
    Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records
  8. People v. Carter

    91 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 124 times
    In People v Carter (91 NY2d 795, 799 [1998]), the New York State Court of Appeals held that where the defendant was indicted and the People served a pre-arraignment statement of readiness to the defendants' last known address, that notwithstanding that the defendant had moved and that the defendant's last known address was not the defendant's then current correct address, the notice was valid.
  9. People v. Poole

    48 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 143 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.
  10. People v. Caussade

    162 A.D.2d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 96 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.