24 Cited authorities

Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,463 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
United States v. Cronic
466 U.S. 648 (1984) Cited 7,363 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"
Kentucky v. Stincer
482 U.S. 730 (1987) Cited 1,585 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,685 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"
People v. Rosario
9 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1961) Cited 1,651 times
Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony
People v. Dokes
79 N.Y.2d 656 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 305 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant's presence required at Sandoval hearing
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. Darby
75 N.Y.2d 449 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 231 times
In People v Darby (75 N.Y.2d 449), the Court of Appeals clarified the scope and reach of Mullen and Buford, by holding that the "unique, indispensable presence of at least the `single-minded counsel for the accused' (People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 290 [cert denied 368 U.S. 866]) is minimally necessary to safeguard that fundamental fairness to defendant" (People v Darby, supra, at 454 [emphasis added]) during the in-camera questioning of a juror.
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. Goggins
34 N.Y.2d 163 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 260 times
In Brown, the officer who purchased the drugs made the identification almost immediately after arrest as the defendant was being brought into the police station for booking; here the identification was at least as immediate.

The People, Respondent,v.Walter Cates, Sr., Appellant.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding defendant is constructively denied counsel during critical stage of criminal proceedings where counsel, inter alia, "fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing"

Holding that exclusion of a defendant from an ex parte in-chambers hearing at which the competency of two child witnesses was determined did not violate due process

Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

Holding that trial court erred by failing to compel prosecution to turn over witnesses' prior statements relating to their trial testimony

Holding defendant's presence required at Sandoval hearing

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

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.

In Brown, the officer who purchased the drugs made the identification almost immediately after arrest as the defendant was being brought into the police station for booking; here the identification was at least as immediate.