§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Antonio Rodriguez, Appellant.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Buford

    69 N.Y.2d 290 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 425 times
    Holding that the trial court's reasons for its determination following a Buford inquiry should be placed on the record

  2. People v. Rodriguez

    71 N.Y.2d 214 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 154 times
    In Rodriguez, the trial court expressly informed the juror that her discharge would result in a mistrial, that there were no more alternates, and remarked that “after almost two days of deliberating all this goes down the drain” (71 N.Y.2d at 217, 524 N.Y.S.2d 422, 519 N.E.2d 333).

  3. People v. Ordenana

    20 A.D.3d 39 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    June 2, 2005. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered October 1, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, and imposed sentence. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City ( Abigail Everett and Michael J.Z. Mannheimer of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Deborah L. Morse of counsel), for respondent

  4. People v. Thomas

    196 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 11 times

    August 26, 1993 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.). During the trial of this matter, the prosecutor informed the Trial Judge and defense counsel that after court had recessed the previous day, she observed two of her police witnesses who had testified for the prosecution, talking to the jury foreperson while waiting for an elevator. Two or three other jurors were also present. The prosecutor stated that she heard the foreperson say something in a jocular manner

  5. People v. McClenton

    213 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 9 times
    In People v. McClenton (213 AD2d 1, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 872), where the trial court declined to conduct an inquiry of a deliberating juror who wrote a note which indicated that the juror's discharge might be required, this Court concluded that an inquiry should have been conducted by the trial court.

  6. People v. Radtke

    219 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 8 times

    September 25, 1995 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.). Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. We agree with the defendant's contention that the trial court improperly dismissed Juror No. 12 during trial as "grossly unqualified" (CPL 270.35) because of his offensive body odor (see, People v Radtke, 155 Misc.2d 21). The standard for discharging a juror as grossly unqualified to serve under CPL 270.35 "is satisfied only `when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses

  7. People v. Colon

    172 A.D.2d 173 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    April 4, 1991 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Frank J. Blangiardo, J.). Defendant first argues that he was denied a fair trial by reason of evidence introduced on the People's cross examination of defense witnesses which created the impression that he was involved in a large-scale narcotics trade. Although charged with only a single instance of possessing heroin, not selling it, much evidence was introduced of ongoing and rampant drug selling in the building where defendant was arrested

  8. People v. Negron

    136 A.D.2d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 10 times

    January 28, 1988 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.). In substance, on April 5, 1984, the defendant was arrested after allegedly being observed by the police making an illegal narcotic sale. Thereafter, by a three-count indictment, filed April 19, 1984, defendant was charged by a New York County Grand Jury with the crimes of a criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third

  9. People v. Soto

    172 A.D.2d 355 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 5 times

    April 23, 1991 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Arlene R. Silverman, J.). Defendant, the sole occupant of a car from which the police recovered more than two ounces of cocaine, testified that other persons also had access to the vehicle, thereby suggesting that they could have placed the narcotics there. Over defendant's objection, the People were permitted to call an expert rebuttal witness to testify to the street value of the narcotics. The voir dire was conducted in front of the jury

  10. People v. Maldonado

    50 A.D.2d 556 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)   Cited 11 times

    November 25, 1975 Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 7, 1974, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a dangerous drug in the third degree and criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth and sixth degrees, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the interest of justice, and the matter remanded for a new trial. The reversal is mandated solely because of the excesses of the prosecution in the presentation of its case. Introduction of limited background