§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent-Appellant,v.Vincent Barone, Appellant-Respondent.

Brief

20 Cited authorities

  1. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 571 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict

  2. People v. Concepcion

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5110 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 225 times
    Noting that New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 470.15 bars the Appellate Division "from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court"

  3. People v. Malloy

    55 N.Y.2d 296 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 483 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that charge defining reasonable doubt as "a doubt for which you can conscientiously express a reason" was "neither confusing nor inaccurate"

  4. People v. Yut Wai Tom

    53 N.Y.2d 44 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 283 times
    In Yut Wai Tom, "the most prejudicial conduct of the Trial Judge... was his constant interruption of defense counsel's cross-examination to ask questions which would only be proper as redirect examination if asked by the prosecutor" (Yut Wai Tom, 53 NY2d at 59).

  5. People v. Ciaccio

    47 N.Y.2d 431 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 229 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that instructions given during jury deliberations "may well be determinative of the outcome of the case, coming as they do in response to questions raised by the jurors themselves"

  6. People v. Arnold

    98 N.Y.2d 63 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 116 times
    In People v. Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67, 745 N.Y.S.2d 782, 772 N.E.2d 1140 (2002), the court added there is no absolute bar to a trial court asking a particular number of questions of a seated witness.

  7. People v. Moulton

    43 N.Y.2d 944 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 221 times

    Submitted January 9, 1978 Decided February 22, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, EDWARD S. LENTOL, J. Robert S. Katz and William E. Hellerstein for appellant. Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Cynthia Kean of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order should be affirmed. The role of a Trial Judge in a criminal case is not merely that of an observer or even that of a referee enforcing the rules of a game (see People v De Jesus, 42 N

  8. People v. De Jesus

    42 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 191 times
    In DeJesus, the New York Court of Appeals had held that a trial judge's excessive intervention had denied a criminal defendant of a fair trial.

  9. U.S. v. DiNome

    954 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was no prejudicial spillover effect because contested evidence was relevant to RICO charges and would have been admitted against all defendants

  10. People v. Doshi

    93 N.Y.2d 499 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 98 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Argued April 28, 1999 Decided June 10, 1999 Norman A. Olch, for appellant. Donald H. Zuckerman, for respondent. CIPARICK, J.: Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of a total of 21 counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance, criminal sale of a prescription for a controlled substance, criminal possession of a controlled substance and failure to label a prescription drug. The convictions under four of those counts were subsequently vacated, due to an erroneous jury charge. The primary