§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.William Morrison, Respondent.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. People v. O'Rama

    78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 571 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split "6/6," told counsel the jury was experiencing "continued disagreements," and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict

  2. 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

  3. People v. Mack

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 4321 (N.Y. 2016)   Cited 110 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Mack, the Court of Appeals made clear that a court should follow a two-step process when it receives a jury note: (1) give counsel notice that a note has been received; and (2) meaningfully respond to the note.

  4. People v. Kisoon

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1194 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 132 times
    In People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 132, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 739 (2007), the New York Court of Appeals considered "whether a trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to disclose... a jury note."

  5. People v. Santorelli

    95 N.Y.2d 412 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 102 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district attorney did not violate Brady obligations by failing to turn over FBI 302s because the reports were not in the actual possession of the district attorney, the federal authorities refused to allow the district attorney access to the reports, and the trial court made a finding that the federal and state investigators acted independently

  6. People v. Silva

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 8215 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014] and People v. Hanson, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2014], the Court of Appeals held that the trial courts committed mode of proceedings errors by failing to notify counsel of jury notes before the juries in each case reached their verdicts, even though the transcripts in both cases failed to establish whether the courts were aware that the notes had been submitted.

  7. People v. Michalek

    82 N.Y.2d 906 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Decided January 11, 1994 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Kenneth K. Rohl, J. Anton Michalek, pro se, and McKenna Schneier, Valley Stream (Alan Schneier of counsel), for Anton Michalek, appellant. James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney of Suffolk County, Riverhead (Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified and the case remitted to Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for

  8. People v. Cruz

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2832 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    Holding the presumption was overcome with evidence that "there was a significant, unexplained irregularity in the proceedings"

  9. People v. Bethune

    29 N.Y.3d 539 (N.Y. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    06-08-2017 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jamar BETHUNE, Appellant. Ryan G. Blanch, New York City, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn (Jodi L. Mandel, Leonard Joblove and Joyce Adolfsen of counsel), for respondent. WILSON, J. Ryan G. Blanch, New York City, for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn (Jodi L. Mandel, Leonard Joblove and Joyce Adolfsen of counsel), for respondent. OPINION OF THE COURT WILSON, J. Defendant Jamar

  10. People v. Kahley

    105 A.D.3d 1322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 15 times

    2013-04-26 The PEOPLE of the State of New YoRK, Respondent, v. Dale KAHLEY, Defendant–Appellant. Kimberly J. Czapranski, Interim Conflict Defender, Rochester (Joseph D. Waldorf of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent. Kimberly J. Czapranski, Interim Conflict Defender, Rochester (Joseph D. Waldorf of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for