§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Michael S. Brumfield, Respondent.

Brief

32 Cited authorities

  1. Johnson v. Zerbst

    304 U.S. 458 (1938)   Cited 8,795 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

  2. People v. Calbud, Inc.

    49 N.Y.2d 389 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 828 times
    In People v Calbud, Inc. (49 NY2d 389), the Court of Appeals made plain that the prosecution only needs to provide the grand jury with enough information to enable it "intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime."

  3. People v. Iannone

    45 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 830 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the defendants in these two appeals have failed to preserve a question of law which this court may review and have waived their objections to the sufficiency of the factual allegations in the indictments by which they were brought before the courts"

  4. People v. Pelchat

    62 N.Y.2d 97 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 423 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a petitioner who pleads guilty can later challenge the grand jury proceedings if the prosecutor was aware that the only evidence before the grand jury was false

  5. People v. Samuels

    49 N.Y.2d 218 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 306 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218, 424 N.Y.S.2d 892, 400 N.E.2d 1344 (1980), we held that once an accusatory instrument has been filed, a defendant cannot waive his constitutional right to counsel in counsel's absence.

  6. People v. Boston

    75 N.Y.2d 585 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 148 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Boston, defendant purported to waive indictment to attempted depraved indifference murder after he had been indicted for intentional murder and related offenses and without any felony complaint having been filed with respect to the new charge.

  7. People v. Smith

    87 N.Y.2d 715 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 79 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In People v Smith (87 NY2d 715 [1996]), in the context of grand jury testimony, we emphasized that allowing questioning about an unrelated pending criminal matter has an impermissible "chilling effect" on the accused's "significant" and "valued" statutory right to testify, which must be "scrupulously protected."

  8. People v. Evans

    79 N.Y.2d 407 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 88 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal of indictment, because statutory right to testify was not satisfied by opportunity to appear after Grand Jury had voted indictment

  9. People v. Betts

    70 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that a defendant could not be cross-examined regarding collateral criminal conduct involving a drug charge when the questioning pertained to a completely unrelated burglary offense and went only to the defendant's credibility

  10. People v. Shawn Hunter

    17 N.Y.3d 725 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 29 times

    Argued April 28, 2011. Decided June 2, 2011. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered February 11, 2010. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled