24 Cited authorities

Bell v. Cone
535 U.S. 685 (2002) Cited 9,830 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”
Illinois v. Wardlow
528 U.S. 119 (2000) Cited 5,099 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991))
People v. Baldi
54 N.Y.2d 137 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 5,978 times 6 Legal Analyses
In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.
People v. Rivera
71 N.Y.2d 705 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 1,832 times
Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel
People v. Turner
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8766 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 523 times 5 Legal Analyses
Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal
People v. Berrios
28 N.Y.2d 361 (N.Y. 1971) Cited 603 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued March 2, 1971 Decided May 12, 1971 Appeal from the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, NEAL P. BOTTIGLIERI, J., WALTER H. GLADWIN, J., NICHOLAS F. DELAGI, J., DENNIS EDWARDS, JR., J., LOUIS SCHRIFIN, J. Appeal from the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts of the Second Judicial Department, ALLEN BELDOCK, J., ALBERT R. MURRAY, J. Donald H. Zuckerman, Milton Adler, William E. Hellerstein, Lewis B. Oliver, Jr., Carol Berkman and William A. Nelson for appellants
People v. Benjamin
51 N.Y.2d 267 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 383 times
In People v Benjamin (51 N.Y.2d 267), a police officer responded to a radio run of men with guns at a specific location.
People v. Holmes
81 N.Y.2d 1056 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 199 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that police observation of an "unidentified bulge" in defendant's jacket pocket, in a "known narcotics location," taken together with defendant's flight, justified an information request but not police pursuit
People v. Di Stefano
38 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 186 times
In DiStefano, intercepted conversations related to the crime of robbery, but the wiretap order authorized interception of conversations relating to gambling offenses.
People v. Aiken
45 N.Y.2d 394 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 163 times
Stating that the "basic issue" is "whether a defendant's counsel, appointed or retained, failed to provide effective legal representation, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial"

The People, Respondent,v.Jocelyn Clermont, Appellant.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that state court adjudication that “correctly identified the principles announced [by the Supreme Court] as those governing the analysis ... was [not] contrary to ... clearly established law”

Holding "refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991))

In Baldi, the New York State Court of Appeals expressly applied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the federal Constitution.

Holding petitioner who failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsels' alleged shortcoming did not have viable claim to constitutionally ineffective counsel

Finding appellate counsel ineffective for not raising ineffectiveness of trial counsel on appeal

In People v Benjamin (51 N.Y.2d 267), a police officer responded to a radio run of men with guns at a specific location.

Holding that police observation of an "unidentified bulge" in defendant's jacket pocket, in a "known narcotics location," taken together with defendant's flight, justified an information request but not police pursuit

In DiStefano, intercepted conversations related to the crime of robbery, but the wiretap order authorized interception of conversations relating to gambling offenses.

Stating that the "basic issue" is "whether a defendant's counsel, appointed or retained, failed to provide effective legal representation, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial"