§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. People v. Frost

    100 N.Y.2d 129 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that the state advanced an "overriding interest" justifying partial courtroom closure based on witness's "legitimate fear" of testifying in open court

  4. People v. Wardlaw

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2455 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 42 times
    In Wardlaw, the Court held that the right to counsel is "indeed very important" but that "deprivations of important constitutional rights do not require a remedy when it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that they did not contribute to a conviction.

  5. People v. Contreras

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2647 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 18 times

    No. 37. Argued February 17, 2009. decided April 7, 2009. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered January 3, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, attempted

  6. People v. Ortega

    586 N.E.2d 55 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 14 times

    Decided November 25, 1991 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, J. Kevin Mulroy, J. Robert E. Wildridge, District Attorney (James P. Maxwell of counsel), for appellant. Vivian M. Aquilina for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. The sale of cocaine upon which defendant's conviction was predicated took place