5 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. Silva

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014] and People v. Hanson, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014], the Court of Appeals held that the trial courts committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to notify counsel of jury notes before the juries in each case reached their verdicts, even though the transcripts in both cases failed to establish whether the courts were aware that the notes had been submitted.
  3. People v. Tabb

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8679 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an "absence of record proof constituted "a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal"
  4. United States v. Ronder

    639 F.2d 931 (2d Cir. 1981)   Cited 87 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing where trial court failed to discuss several jury notes with counsel because disclosure of at least one of the notes "might well have prompted counsel to suggest a response appropriately tailored to the circumstances"
  5. People v. Aiken

    246 N.E.2d 755 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Argued January 21, 1969 Decided February 20, 1969 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JOHN R. STARKEY, J. Albert S. Pergam and Anthony F. Marra for appellant. Eugene Gold, District Attorney ( William I. Siegel of counsel), for respondent. Judgment affirmed; no opinion. Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, KEATING, BREITEL and JASEN.