§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Gunther J. Flinn, Appellant.

Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. North Carolina v. Pearce

    395 U.S. 711 (1969)   Cited 6,845 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction, thus affirming defendant's higher sentence on being reconvicted, after he had been tried and convicted, appealed, and won a new trial

  2. Bordenkircher v. Hayes

    434 U.S. 357 (1978)   Cited 2,901 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plea bargaining does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination

  3. United States v. Goodwin

    457 U.S. 368 (1982)   Cited 1,625 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when the Government brought a felony indictment after the defendant refused to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges and demanded a jury trial

  4. People v. Antommarchi

    80 N.Y.2d 247 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 541 times
    Recognizing a defendant's right to be present at sidebar conferences during jury selection

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. People v. Velasquez

    1 N.Y.3d 44 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 164 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a "presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings," which "may be overcome only by substantial evidence," not mere speculation

  8. People v. Vargas

    88 N.Y.2d 363 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 166 times
    Holding that the New York right to be present at sidebars "is not rooted in the Constitution but rather in [section 260.20 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law,] which requires that ` defendant . . . be personally present during the trial of an indictment'"

  9. People v. Mitchell

    80 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 172 times
    Holding that "the Antommarchi rule is not compelled by Federal law" and that "limited exclusion from side-bar discussions with prospective jurors . . . will not violate a defendant's [federal] constitutional right to be present"

  10. People v. Sloan

    79 N.Y.2d 386 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 147 times
    Discussing the value of a defendant's observations with respect to counsel's decision whether to challenge a juror for cause or by peremptory strike