28 Cited authorities

People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 568 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
People v. Kendzia
64 N.Y.2d 331 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 585 times
Holding that the time it takes to decide the defendant's speedy trial motion is excludable
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"
People v. Providence
2 N.Y.3d 579 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 168 times
Finding a valid waiver because "the trial judge repeatedly and adequately warned [the defendant] of the dangers of self-representation, and gave him several opportunities to express a change of heart"
People v. Velasquez
1 N.Y.3d 44 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 164 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that a "presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings," which "may be overcome only by substantial evidence," not mere speculation
People v. Kisoon
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 132 times
In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."
People v. Ahmed
66 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 208 times
In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.
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"
People v. Lourido
70 N.Y.2d 428 (N.Y. 1987) Cited 127 times
In Lourido, we found an error sufficient, in combination with others, to compel reversal where the jury requested a read-back of the cross-examination of a key witness, received no response and rendered a verdict some three hours later; we implied that the court should at least have asked the jury, before accepting the verdict, whether it still wanted the testimony read back (id. at 431-433).
People v. Agosto
73 N.Y.2d 963 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 104 times
In Agosto, by contrast, we affirmed a conviction on a jury verdict rendered 20 minutes after two jurors had (in the late morning) sent a note asking that the jury be dismissed before sundown.

The People, Respondent,v.Pamela Hanson, Appellant.

28 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the time it takes to decide the defendant's speedy trial motion is excludable

Holding that charge defining reasonable doubt as "a doubt for which you can conscientiously express a reason" was "neither confusing nor inaccurate"

Finding a valid waiver because "the trial judge repeatedly and adequately warned [the defendant] of the dangers of self-representation, and gave him several opportunities to express a change of heart"

Noting that a "presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings," which "may be overcome only by substantial evidence," not mere speculation

In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."

In People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 487 N.E.2d 894, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984 (1985), the New York Court of Appeals held that even a defendant's consent could not overcome the right to judicial supervision during jury deliberations.

Holding that an "absence of record proof constituted "a mode of proceedings error . . . requiring reversal"

In Agosto, by contrast, we affirmed a conviction on a jury verdict rendered 20 minutes after two jurors had (in the late morning) sent a note asking that the jury be dismissed before sundown.