§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Nnamdi Clarke, Respondent.

Brief

38 Cited authorities

  1. Marks v. United States

    430 U.S. 188 (1977)   Cited 2,097 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that due process is violated if the trial court instructs the jury based on the current interpretation of a statute, rather than the interpretation that controlled at the time of the allegedly criminal acts

  2. People v. Cortes

    80 N.Y.2d 201 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 477 times
    In People v Cortes (80 N.Y.2d 201[1992], the Court of Appeals charged the People with delay based upon the unavailability of an attorney from the 18-B Assigned Defender Plan.

  3. People v. Wesley

    83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 443 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "[d]efendant's challenges to the population studies relied on by Lifecodes to estimate the probability of a coincidental match go not to admissibility, but to the weight of the evidence, which should be left to the trier of fact."

  4. Frye v. United States

    293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)   Cited 4,497 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted

  5. People v. Anderson

    66 N.Y.2d 529 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 380 times
    Stating that C.P.L. § 30.30, setting forth time limitations in which People must be ready for trial, addresses only problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a "Speedy Trial" statute in the constitutional sense

  6. People v. LeGrand

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 2588 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 205 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the principles expounded by the defense expert witness on weapon focus were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community

  7. Matter of Lahey v. Kelly

    71 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 322 times
    Distinguishing cases holding that single unconfirmed test are not sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process

  8. People v. Worley

    66 N.Y.2d 523 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 277 times
    Holding that the motion practice exclusion of CPL 30.30 applied to a period during which the People were not ready because the case was proceeding under an unconverted misdemeanor complaint

  9. People v. Carter

    91 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 155 times
    In Carter, the court considered the implications of sending a statement of readiness to the wrong address for three defendants and found that the prosecution had attempted to notify the defendants at their last known address and "[i]n the absence of proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People's position or that the mailing was made in bad faith, the People had discharged their duty under CPL 30.30" (seeCarter at 799, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523, 699 N.E.2d 35 [emphasis added]).

  10. People v. Sibblies

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2377 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 93 times
    Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records