§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Estevan Gentil, Respondent,v.Hon. Ira Margulis,, Respondent, Hon. Richard A. Brown,, Appellant.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. Arizona v. Washington

    434 U.S. 497 (1978)   Cited 1,827 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge's failure to make an explicit finding of manifest necessity does not render the declaration of a mistrial constitutionally defective when the basis for that determination is adequately disclosed by the record

  2. United States v. Dinitz

    424 U.S. 600 (1976)   Cited 1,261 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial when the misconduct is aimed at “afford[ing] the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant”

  3. Illinois v. Somerville

    410 U.S. 458 (1973)   Cited 1,134 times
    Holding that since "the mistrial met the `manifest necessity" requirement of our cases, . . . the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment . . . did not bar retrial under a valid indictment."

  4. People v. Ferguson

    67 N.Y.2d 383 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 189 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present

  5. People v. Michael

    48 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 213 times
    Finding no "manifest necessity" where mistrial declared due to the absence of the defendant's attorney because of a death in the family and the court's belief that the trial had to terminate by the end of the week because the court and several jury members had vacation plans

  6. People v. Gajadhar

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9903 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 42 times
    In People v. Gajadhar, 9 N.Y.3d 438, 850 N.Y.S.2d 377, 880 N.E.2d 863 (2007) the Court of Appeals held that where a juror is excused after deliberations have begun, a defendant with the consent of the court may provide written consent to continue deliberations with 11 jurors.

  7. Hall v. Potoker

    49 N.Y.2d 501 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 101 times

    Argued January 11, 1980 Decided March 25, 1980 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. Steven G. Asin, Leon B. Polsky, Ivar Goldart, Barbara Salken and Pamela R. Winnick for appellant. Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Joel M. Goldberg of counsel), respondent pro se. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Patricia C. Armstrong and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for Michael Potoker and another, respondents. Chief Judge COOKE. The issue here is whether

  8. Matter of Davis v. Brown

    87 N.Y.2d 626 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 61 times

    Argued February 13, 1996 Decided March 28, 1996 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. Mark W. Zeno, Kew Gardens, Robert M. Baum and Lori L. Zeno for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County, Kew Gardens ( Andrew L. Crabtree and Steven J. Chananie of counsel), for Richard A. Brown, respondent pro se. Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City ( Arnold D. Fleischer and Barbara G. Billet of counsel), for Stanley Katz,

  9. Rivera v. Firetog

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 9432 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 28 times
    In Rivera, the United States Supreme Court specifically acknowledged the split in state authority at the time it rendered its decision (compare Angus v State, 695 NW2d 109, 118 [Minn 2005] [applying automatic reversal rule]; State v Vreen, 143 Wash 2d 923, 927-931, 26 P3d 236, 238-240 [same], with People v Bell, 473 Mich 275, 292-300, 702 NW2d 128, 138-141 [rejecting automatic reversal rule]).

  10. Matter of Enright v. Siedlecki

    59 N.Y.2d 195 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that under New York law, "the predecessor corporation must be extinguished" in order for successor liability to apply