§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Herman Bank, Appellant.

Brief

18 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Morrison

    449 U.S. 361 (1981)   Cited 1,116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[c]ases involving Sixth Amendment deprivations are subject to the general rule that remedies should be tailored to the injury suffered from the constitutional violation"

  2. People v. Prochilo

    41 N.Y.2d 759 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 1,600 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In People v Prochilo (41 N.Y.2d 759, 763), even though the police officer was able to observe a visibly heavy object in defendant Bernard's pocket, we ordered the gun suppressed, in part because the officer was completely unable to connect his observations with the presence of a weapon until after he had taken the impermissible step of reaching into the pocket.

  3. People v. Harrison

    57 N.Y.2d 470 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 264 times
    In People v. Harrison (57 N.Y.2d 470, 476), the Court of Appeals held that: "Confining the occupants to the car, even temporarily, is at least equivalent to a stop.

  4. People v. Hernandez

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7658 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 79 times

    2013-11-19 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Felix HERNANDEZ, Appellant. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Bonnie C. Brennan of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Hope Korenstein and Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), for respondent. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Bonnie C. Brennan of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Hope Korenstein and Patrick J. Hynes of

  5. Mask v. McGinnis

    233 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding under AEDPA that the “state court's determination of factual issues ... were so closely intertwined with the state court's articulation of an erroneous legal standard, to which we owe no deference, that we can discern no independent factual issues to which we should defer”

  6. U.S. v. Williams

    372 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 92 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a waiver was not knowing and intelligent where the defendant was unaware of the extent of his lawyer's prior criminal activities or that his lawyer was the subject of a grand jury investigation and there was no evidence defendant knew how these facts might translate into a conflict of interest

  7. People v. Howard

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7824 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 69 times
    In People v. Howard, 22 N.Y.3d 388, 981 N.Y.S.2d 310, 4 N.E.3d 320 (2013), among the issues between the Court's majority and the dissent was whether the Court had adopted a bright-line of two hours of separation between the crime and the showup in determining whether the showup was proper.

  8. People v. Adams

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 2107 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 38 times
    In Adams, the Court of Appeals held that the District Attorney's refusal to permit defendant to plead guilty to a reduced charge because the complainant, a sitting judge who presided over cases involving that District Attorney's Office, insisted that the matter go to trial, demonstrated an "unacceptably great appearance of impropriety" (id. at 613, 964 N.Y.S.2d 495, 987 N.E.2d 272).

  9. People v. Abar

    99 N.Y.2d 406 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 54 times
    Affirming where the record showed a former prosecutor's "conflict did not operate on the defense"

  10. U.S. v. Carmichael

    216 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 54 times
    Finding plain error when supervised release term exceeded term allowed by guidelines