27 Cited authorities

  1. Morrissey v. Brewer

    408 U.S. 471 (1972)   Cited 9,416 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the minimum requirements of due process" in a parole revocation proceeding include "the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses"
  2. Missouri v. Hunter

    459 U.S. 359 (1983)   Cited 2,043 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that cumulative punishment does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause if the legislature specifically authorized it
  3. Whalen v. United States

    445 U.S. 684 (1980)   Cited 1,367 times
    Holding rape and felony murder are the same offense under Blockburger where felony murder conviction could not be had without proof of the rape
  4. United States v. Difrancesco

    449 U.S. 117 (1980)   Cited 1,310 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause is not always a bar to a government appeal of a sentence
  5. People v. Lingle

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3308 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 475 times
    Holding that a defendant's right to appeal after a resentencing is "limited to the correction of errors or the abuse of discretion at the resentencing proceeding"
  6. People v. Sparber

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3946 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 328 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, by imposing PRS terms, DOCS usurped the judicial function as defined by New York law; only the sentencing court has the authority to impose the PRS component of the sentence and must do so at the time of sentencing
  7. People v. Williams

    14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 234 times
    Holding that “after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence”
  8. People v. Kan

    78 N.Y.2d 54 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 230 times
    Finding that the closure of the court including the exclusion of defendant's family during the testimony of an accomplice cooperating witness violated defendant's right to a public trial, given that the witness had previously testified in front of defendant's parents, had testified that he did not fear defendant's family, and defendant had a greater interest in having her family present because of a language barrier
  9. Gonzalez-Fuentes v. Molina

    607 F.3d 864 (1st Cir. 2010)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that inmates had a liberty interest in an Electronic Supervision Program that allowed inmate to complete their sentences outside of prison
  10. People v. Konstantinides

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9311 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 57 times
    In Konstantinides, a witness specifically claimed that a defense lawyer asked her to lie (14 N.Y.3d at 6, 896 N.Y.S.2d 284, 923 N.E.2d 567); in Fulton, a witness had told prosecutors “that he had once imported heroin for Pulton's trial counsel” (5 F.3d at 606).