§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Daniel Floyd, Appellant.

Brief

16 Cited authorities

  1. Presley v. Georgia

    558 U.S. 209 (2010)   Cited 633 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment applies to jury selection

  2. People v. Nieves

    2 N.Y.3d 310 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 414 times
    In Nieves, the defendant contended that the orders of protection were unlawfully lengthy because, after the sentencing court entered them with fixed expiration dates based on the defendant's anticipated release date, DOCCS credited him with additional jail time, rendering the orders above the statutory maximum.

  3. Downs v. Lape

    657 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 320 times
    Holding that federal habeas review of a Sixth Amendment public trial claim was barred where the state court dismissed the claim pursuant to the contemporaneous objection rule

  4. People v. Kinchen

    60 N.Y.2d 772 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 261 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.

  5. People v. McLean

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4872 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 79 times

    113. Decided on June 10, 2010. Danielle Neroni Reilly, for appellant. Gerald A. Dwyer, for respondent. Judges Graffeo, Read and Pigott concur. Judge Jones dissents and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Ciparick concur. Opinion by Judge SMITH. We have held that, where a defendant's statement to law enforcement authorities is obtained in violation of his right to counsel, the use of that statement against defendant at trial is an error that may be raised on appeal

  6. United States v. Espinal–Almeida

    699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that although "the government did not, in accordance with Rule 16, state what opinions [the expert] was expected to offer at trial," this oversight was "not particularly concerning given that [the expert] did not ultimately offer opinion testimony"

  7. United States v. Gupta

    699 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2012)   Cited 57 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "despite not making any Waller findings, the district court intentionally excluded the public from the courtroom for the entirety of voir dire" and therefore, "[o]n these facts alone, the closure was unjustified"

  8. People v. Alvarez

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7227 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 48 times

    2012-10-30 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luis ALVAREZ, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William George, Appellant. Appellate Advocates, New York City (Kendra L. Hutchinson and Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (Danielle Hartman and John M. Castellano of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action. Appellate Advocates, New York City (Kendra

  9. People v. Robinson

    36 N.Y.2d 224 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 131 times
    Holding that defendant's "failure to object to the [jury] charge . . . or to request further clarifications at a time when the error complained of could readily have been corrected preserved no questions of law reviewable" by the higher court

  10. People v. Caban

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2674 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Allowing admission of evidence of license suspension in criminal case where suspension based on conduct similar to that of which defendant accused