§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Dean Pacquette, Appellant.

Brief

24 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Wade

    388 U.S. 218 (1967)   Cited 8,074 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

  2. Stovall v. Denno

    388 U.S. 293 (1967)   Cited 5,309 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suggestive show-up was "imperative" where it was not clear how long the person making the identification would live; she was not able to visit the jail; taking the defendant to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure; and a line-up at the police station was not possible

  3. Gilbert v. California

    388 U.S. 263 (1967)   Cited 3,085 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he taking of [handwriting] exemplars did not violate petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination"

  4. People v. Gillotti

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4117 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 1,832 times
    In People v Gillotti (23 N.Y.3d 841 [2014]), the Court of Appeals held, among other things, that such assessments are not improper for persons convicted of possessing child pornography, and that the position statement issued by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders "does not bar the assignment of points under factors 3 and 7 in child pornography cases" (23 N.Y.3d at 845).

  5. People v. Crimmins

    36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 5,689 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"

  6. People v. Rodriguez

    79 N.Y.2d 445 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 643 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where "a citizen identification [is] `merely confirmatory' . . . that the People [bear the burden of showing] that the protagonists are known to one another, or [if] there is no mutual relationship, that the witness knows defendant so well as to be impervious to police suggestion."

  7. People v. Gissendanner

    48 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 738 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Gissendanner, the court reviewed a lower court's denial of a defendant's request to issue a subpoena for the police personnel files of prosecution witnesses.

  8. People v. Wharton

    74 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 294 times
    In People v. Wharton (74 NY2d 921, 922-923), we explained that a trained police officer's identification of a defendant "at a place and time sufficiently connected and contemporaneous to the arrest itself as to constitute the ordinary and proper completion of an integral police procedure" was not the sort of event "ordinarily burdened or compromised by forbidden suggestiveness, warranting a lineup procedure or Wade hearing."

  9. People v. Dixon

    85 N.Y.2d 218 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 151 times
    In People v. Dixon (85 N.Y.2d 218, 222), the Court of Appeals stated that "the purpose of a Wade hearing is to test identification testimony for taint arising from official suggestion during `police-arranged confrontations between a defendant and an eyewitness'" (quoting People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 552).

  10. People v. O'Doherty

    70 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 177 times
    In People v O'Doherty (70 N.Y.2d 479), we held that where the People do not establish good cause for delay, it is error to permit late notice and admit such evidence at trial.