§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Akieme Nesbitt, Appellant.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Benevento

    91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 4,215 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."

  2. People v. Caban

    5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 1,639 times
    Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

  3. People v. Evans

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2482 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 474 times
    Holding that it may be a reasonable strategy for a defense attorney not to seek dismissal of a time-barred lesser charge in order to provide the jury the opportunity to render a compromise verdict where there was a multiple-count indictment

  4. People v. McKinnon

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 7251 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 87 times
    Explaining that "serious" disfigurement would not rise to level of "severe" disfigurement, such that it need not be " ‘abhorrently distressing, highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly’ to a reasonable person"

  5. People v. Lopez

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1316 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 83 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that police officer who questioned defendant in custody about an unrelated matter was required to make a reasonable inquiry concerning the defendant's representational status before commencing interrogation, where the circumstances, such as fact that bail had been set, indicated that there was a probable likelihood that an attorney had entered the custodial matter, and the accused was actually represented on the custodial charge

  6. Torres v. State

    688 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2004)   Cited 92 times
    Holding that defense counsel's closing statement was not a concession when counsel requested surrebuttal to clarify that no concession occurred

  7. People v. Stewart

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8999 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 40 times
    In People v Stewart (18 N.Y.3d 831 [2011]), upon which the concurrence relies, the Court acknowledged that "pain may itself be disabling," but the victim did not testify that his pain rose to that level (see id. at 832-833).

  8. People v. Feliciano

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3677 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 40 times
    Observing that “appellate courts are uniquely suited to evaluate what [constitutes] meaningful [representation] in their own arena.”

  9. People v. Petrovich

    87 N.Y.2d 961 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 57 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Petrovich defendant's desire to charge the jury with only second-degree murder — and not manslaughter under EED — was "dispositive of a defendant's fate" (87 NY2d at 963).

  10. People v. Nimmons

    95 A.D.3d 1360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reducing second degree assault conviction where victim suffered a gunshot wound to the chest, despite emergency medical technician's testimony as to the potential life threatening consequences because “the EMT's testimony, along with the victim's medical records, which were not explained or amplified by the testimony of a health care provider, were legally insufficient to establish that the injury to this victim ‘create[d] a substantial risk of death’ ”