12 Cited authorities

People v. Benevento
91 N.Y.2d 708 (N.Y. 1998) Cited 4,214 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."
People v. Caban
5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 1,638 times
Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth
People v. LaValle
3 N.Y.3d 88 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 176 times 4 Legal Analyses
Invalidating mandatory requirement to instruct the jury that, in the case of jury deadlock as to the appropriate sentence in a capital case, the defendant would receive a sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving a minimum of 20 to 25 years
People v. Harris
98 N.Y.2d 452 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 148 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing defendant's murder of three persons in course of robbery
People v. Wright
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 5621 (N.Y. 2015) Cited 84 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding reversible error based on a prosecutor's closing argument that contradicted expert testimony and misrepresented the scientific import of the DNA evidence
People v. Oathout
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3122 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 84 times 1 Legal Analyses
2013-05-2 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher OATHOUT, Appellant. Cheryl Coleman Law Offices, Albany (Cheryl Coleman of counsel), for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent. PIGOTT Cheryl Coleman Law Offices, Albany (Cheryl Coleman of counsel), for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT PIGOTT, J. [1] In People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y
People v. Droz
39 N.Y.2d 457 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 196 times
In People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457, 463, 384 N.Y.S.2d 404, 348 N.E.2d 880 (1976), the New York Court of Appeals vacated a conviction, stating that "we cannot say that the representation defendant received was adequate or effective in any meaningful sense of the word."
People v. Pitts
4 N.Y.3d 303 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 41 times
In People v. Pitts, 4 N.Y.3d 303, 795 N.Y.S.2d 151, 828 N.E.2d 67 (2005), the New York Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue that arose under New York's post-conviction DNA testing statute.
People v. Bennett
29 N.Y.2d 462 (N.Y. 1972) Cited 111 times
In Bennett, scrutiny was no longer focused upon the preventive action of the trial court (see, e.g., People v Tomaselli, 7 N.Y.2d 350, supra; see, also, People v. Lampkins, 21 N.Y.2d 138) but rather on defense counsel's failings in the general conduct of the defense.
People v. Zaborski
59 N.Y.2d 863 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 61 times
In People v. Zaborski, 59 N.Y.2d 863, 465 N.Y.S.2d 927, 452 N.E.2d 1255 (1983), counsel raised the defense of entrapment but never produced evidence to support it.

The People, Appellant,v.Ganesh R. Ramsaran, Respondent.

12 Cited authorities

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."

Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

Invalidating mandatory requirement to instruct the jury that, in the case of jury deadlock as to the appropriate sentence in a capital case, the defendant would receive a sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving a minimum of 20 to 25 years

Describing defendant's murder of three persons in course of robbery

Finding reversible error based on a prosecutor's closing argument that contradicted expert testimony and misrepresented the scientific import of the DNA evidence

In People v. Droz, 39 N.Y.2d 457, 463, 384 N.Y.S.2d 404, 348 N.E.2d 880 (1976), the New York Court of Appeals vacated a conviction, stating that "we cannot say that the representation defendant received was adequate or effective in any meaningful sense of the word."

In People v. Pitts, 4 N.Y.3d 303, 795 N.Y.S.2d 151, 828 N.E.2d 67 (2005), the New York Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue that arose under New York's post-conviction DNA testing statute.

In Bennett, scrutiny was no longer focused upon the preventive action of the trial court (see, e.g., People v Tomaselli, 7 N.Y.2d 350, supra; see, also, People v. Lampkins, 21 N.Y.2d 138) but rather on defense counsel's failings in the general conduct of the defense.

In People v. Zaborski, 59 N.Y.2d 863, 465 N.Y.S.2d 927, 452 N.E.2d 1255 (1983), counsel raised the defense of entrapment but never produced evidence to support it.