18 Cited authorities

Herring v. New York
422 U.S. 853 (1975) Cited 1,161 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a New York statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel
People v. Turner
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8766 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 523 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal
People v. Cronin
60 N.Y.2d 430 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 362 times 1 Legal Analyses
Reversing trial court's preclusion of expert testimony on the impact of alcohol, marijuana and Valium on defendant's ability to act purposefully
People v. Velasco
77 N.Y.2d 469 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 280 times
Holding that defendant's presence not required for charging conference in robing room attended by attorneys for both sides involving only questions of law and procedure
People v. Baker
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2437 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 145 times
Finding that precedents applying Sixth Amendment principles “have no bearing” on exclusion of potential witness
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. McGee
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1867 (N.Y. 2013) Cited 81 times
In People v. McGee, 20 N.Y.3d 513, 964 N.Y.S.2d 73, 986 N.E.2d 907 (2013), we found counsel was not ineffective where he failed to move to dismiss an indictment based on insufficient evidence.
Smalls v. Batista
191 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 108 times
Holding that Allen charge was coercive after examining charge "as a part of the whole instruction, and indeed, as part of all the proceedings that were observed by the jury"
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. Pagan
45 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 114 times
In People v. Pagan (45 N.Y.2d 725, 726-727), the Court of Appeals cautioned against "[s]upplemental charges which prod jurors through prejudicial innuendoes or coerce them with untoward pressure to reach an agreement".

The People, Respondent,v.Patrick Morgan, Appellant.

18 Cited authorities

Holding that a New York statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel

Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal

Reversing trial court's preclusion of expert testimony on the impact of alcohol, marijuana and Valium on defendant's ability to act purposefully

Holding that defendant's presence not required for charging conference in robing room attended by attorneys for both sides involving only questions of law and procedure

Finding that precedents applying Sixth Amendment principles “have no bearing” on exclusion of potential witness

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. McGee, 20 N.Y.3d 513, 964 N.Y.S.2d 73, 986 N.E.2d 907 (2013), we found counsel was not ineffective where he failed to move to dismiss an indictment based on insufficient evidence.

Holding that Allen charge was coercive after examining charge "as a part of the whole instruction, and indeed, as part of all the proceedings that were observed by the jury"

In People v. Pagan (45 N.Y.2d 725, 726-727), the Court of Appeals cautioned against "[s]upplemental charges which prod jurors through prejudicial innuendoes or coerce them with untoward pressure to reach an agreement".