61 Cited authorities

Strickler v. Greene
527 U.S. 263 (1999) Cited 6,380 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed
People v. O'Rama
78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) Cited 568 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
People v. Linares
2 N.Y.3d 507 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 296 times
Affirming conviction and rejecting defendant's argument that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied substitute counsel after he threatened his attorney, who nonetheless proceeded to represent him
Allen v. United States
164 U.S. 492 (1896) Cited 2,806 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial court may encourage a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating provided it does so noncoercively
People v. Patterson
39 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 433 times
In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.
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. 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.
People v. Kinchen
60 N.Y.2d 772 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 260 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.
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."
People v. Umali
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4184 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 119 times
Holding that "(o)ur task in evaluating a challenge to jury instructions is not limited to the appropriateness of a single remark; instead, we review the context and content of the entire charge"
Section 500.11 - Alternative procedure for selected appeals
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.11 Cited 536 times
(a) On its own motion, the court may review selected appeals by an alternative procedure. Such appeals shall be determined on the intermediate appellate court record or appendix and briefs, the writings in the courts below and additional letter submissions on the merits. The clerk of the court shall notify all parties by letter when an appeal has been selected for review pursuant to this section. Appellant may request such review in its preliminary appeal statement. Respondent may request such review
Section 500.1 - General requirements
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.1 Cited 1 times
(a) All papers shall comply with applicable statutes and rules, particularly the signing requirement of section 130-1.1 -a of this Title. (b) Papers filed. Papers filed means briefs, papers submitted pursuant to sections 500.10 and 500.11 of this Part, motion papers, records and appendices. (c) Method of reproduction. All papers filed may be reproduced by any method that produces a permanent, legible, black image on white paper. Reproduction on both sides of the paper is encouraged. (d) Designation

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

61 Cited authorities

Holding that a newspaper article detailing that a witness had been interviewed by the police did not suffice to put a defendant's lawyer on notice that records and evidence concerning the witness existed and had been suppressed

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

Affirming conviction and rejecting defendant's argument that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied substitute counsel after he threatened his attorney, who nonetheless proceeded to represent him

Holding that a trial court may encourage a deadlocked jury to continue deliberating provided it does so noncoercively

In Patterson the Court did not even mention Mullaney until after it had concluded that the issue on the merits was within the special category that always deserves review despite the absence of contemporaneous objection.

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

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.

In Kinchen, the Court of Appeals had held that a claim could not be properly considered where there was no proof in the record with regard to the defendant's allegations.

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."

Holding that "(o)ur task in evaluating a challenge to jury instructions is not limited to the appropriateness of a single remark; instead, we review the context and content of the entire charge"