32 Cited authorities

Johnson v. Zerbst
304 U.S. 458 (1938) Cited 8,796 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent
People v. Seaberg
74 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 1,838 times 1 Legal Analyses
Rejecting Bourne
People v. Hansen
95 N.Y.2d 227 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 444 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, by pleading guilty, the defendant had forfeited his right to challenge the prosecutor's submission of hearsay evidence to the grand jury
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
People v. Parker
57 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 473 times 2 Legal Analyses
Describing the facts the trial court must consider before deeming a defendant to have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present as his criminal trial
People v. Cahill
2 N.Y.3d 14 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 180 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, if the intent of a burglary is to commit murder, then it cannot be said that the murder was carried out "in furtherance of" the burglary, because the burglary "was merely a prerequisite to . . . committing the murder"
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
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'"
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"
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.

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

32 Cited authorities

Holding that a waiver of constitutional rights must be knowing and intelligent

Rejecting Bourne

Holding that, by pleading guilty, the defendant had forfeited his right to challenge the prosecutor's submission of hearsay evidence to the grand jury

Recognizing a defendant's right to be present at sidebar conferences during jury selection

Describing the facts the trial court must consider before deeming a defendant to have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be present as his criminal trial

Holding that, if the intent of a burglary is to commit murder, then it cannot be said that the murder was carried out "in furtherance of" the burglary, because the burglary "was merely a prerequisite to . . . committing the murder"

Noting that a "presumption of regularity attaches to judicial proceedings," which "may be overcome only by substantial evidence," not mere speculation

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'"

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"

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.