§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

4 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. People v. Miller

    163 A.D.2d 491 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 8 times
    In People v. Miller, 558 N.Y.S.2d 591 (App. Div. 1990), the court found that the trial judge erred when he instructed the jury to resume its deliberations, but did not specify that they should continue deliberations on "the entire case."