20 Cited authorities

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (1984) Cited 158,470 times 176 Legal Analyses
Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,630 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Francis v. Franklin
471 U.S. 307 (1985) Cited 2,054 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding a mandatory presumption, either conclusive or rebuttable, as to an element violates a defendant's due process rights because it conflicts with the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged
People v. Benevento
91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 4,211 times 2 Legal Analyses
In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."
Carella v. California
491 U.S. 263 (1989) Cited 601 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an instruction containing an unconstitutional conclusive presumption was subject to harmless-error analysis
People v. Rudolph
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4840 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 419 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Rudolph, the New York Court of Appeals held that per CPL § 720.20(1), where a defendant is eligible to be treated as a youthful offender, per state law, the sentencing court “must” determine whether he or she is to be so treated and that compliance with this statutory compliance cannot be dispensed, even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request.
Smith v. Horn
120 F.3d 400 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 413 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jurors convicted Smith of first degree murder because they found that he was an accomplice to robbery
People v. Thomas
50 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 468 times
Reversing Appellate Division
People v. Patterson
39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 432 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. Umali
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4184 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 119 times
Holding that "(o)ur task in evaluating a challenge to jury instructions is not limited to the appropriateness of a single remark; instead, we review the context and content of the entire charge"

The People, Respondent,v.Brian Degraffenreid, Appellant.

20 Cited authorities

Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding a mandatory presumption, either conclusive or rebuttable, as to an element violates a defendant's due process rights because it conflicts with the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged

In People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-14 (1998), the New York Court of Appeals held that "meaningful representation" included a prejudice component which focuses on the "fairness of the process as a whole rather than [any] particular impact on the outcome of the case."

Holding that an instruction containing an unconstitutional conclusive presumption was subject to harmless-error analysis

Holding that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jurors convicted Smith of first degree murder because they found that he was an accomplice to robbery

Reversing Appellate Division

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.

Holding that "(o)ur task in evaluating a challenge to jury instructions is not limited to the appropriateness of a single remark; instead, we review the context and content of the entire charge"