32 Cited authorities

  1. Johnson v. Zerbst

    304 U.S. 458 (1938)   Cited 8,365 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
  2. People v. Iannone

    45 N.Y.2d 589 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 732 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"
  3. People v. Calbud, Inc.

    49 N.Y.2d 389 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 622 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."
  4. People v. Pelchat

    62 N.Y.2d 97 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 391 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 305 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 128 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. Evans

    79 N.Y.2d 407 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 82 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the right to testify before the grand jury is a "valued statutory option"
  8. People v. Smith

    87 N.Y.2d 715 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 72 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."
  9. People v. Betts

    70 N.Y.2d 289 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 76 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 26 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