People v. Ming Li, 692 N.E.2d 558 (NY 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ming Li, 692 N.E.2d 558 (NY 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 · …irrespective of whether these perceived threats could be tied to the men outside the courtroom, the defendant's belief that the connection existed and his acute emotional reaction upon seeing the group of chinese men outside the courtroom justified closure. at p. 559 ⚠ not in text
49 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Bobo (minn, 2009-07-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Bobo (3×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited "see, e.g."
Minn. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
irrespective of whether these perceived threats could be tied to the men outside the courtroom, the defendant's belief that the connection existed and his acute emotional reaction upon seeing the group of chinese men outside the courtroom justified closure.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cerroni
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Having "consider[ed] reasonable alternatives . . . and [made] findings adequate to support the [partial] closure," the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that excluding the three individuals in question for the remainder of the victim's testimony "advance[d] an overriding interest that [was] likely to be prejudiced . . . [and was] no [*2]broader than necessary to protect that interest" ( id . [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Frost , 100 NY2d 129, 137 [2003]; People v Ming Li , 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Dwight Reid (2×) also: Cited "see"
NY · 2023 · confidence medium
Although the prevention of intimidation by spectators during trial may very well be an “overriding interest” that can support courtroom closure (see People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]), it is incumbent on the trial court to ensure that the record adequately justifies its concerns and demonstrates that the identified interest would be jeopardized absent a closure.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sharp
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
The witness's "extreme fear of testifying in open court was sufficient to establish an overriding interest" ( People v Frost , 100 NY2d 129, 137 [2003]), because the witness's inability to testify without the closures at issue "could have severely undermined the truth seeking function of the court" ( People v Ming Li , 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]) in this gang-related murder case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Joel Nelson (2×)
NY · 2016 · confidence medium
The trial court is best situated to take all the circumstances into account and to determine the appropriate intervention (cf. People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]; Matter of Plummer v Rothwax, 63 NY2d 243, 250 [1984]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s arguments, the witness articulated a specific fear of testifying in the presence of defendant’s brother, and we find that this fear justified the limited closure (see People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]; see also People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dawson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The evidence of the witness’s extreme fear of testifying in open court before the men, her refusal to do so, the trial court’s observations that, based upon the witness’s demeanor, the fear was genuine, together with the fact that, although approximately 15 or so people were present during the stabbing of the decedent, the witness was the only person to come forward to the police, constitutes sufficient proof to establish an overriding interest that was likely to be prejudiced unless the courtroom was closed to the individuals of whom the witness was fearful (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Duell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ultimately, the question is whether the spectator’s presence could “severely undermine! ] the truth seeking function of the court” (People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Duell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ultimately, the question is whether the spectator’s presence could “severely undermine! ] the truth seeking function of the court” (People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stearns
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Under these particular circumstances, the mother’s presence during the testimony of the People’s witnesses “could have severely undermined the truth seeking function of the court, an overriding interest justifying the court’s determination” (People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Konstantinides (2×)
NY · 2009 · confidence medium
We may disturb an Appellate Division determination on this issue only if it lacks any record support" ( Abar, 99 NY2d at 409 , citing People *11 v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 142 [2002], People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002], and People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917-918 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Edwards
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Such exclusion was justified in light of the overriding interests of the witnesses’s security and the clear reluctance of the victim and one of the other civilian prosecution witnesses to testify in the presence of the defendant’s family members (see People v Frost, 100 NY2d 129, 137 [2003]; People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]; People v Stover, 36 AD3d 837 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stover
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
This very limited exclusion was justified in consideration of the overriding interests of that witness’s security and his clear reluctance to testify in the presence of the defendant’s family members and friends (see People v Frost, 100 NY2d 129, 137 [2003]; People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Scullark
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Based upon the testimony of the victim’s treating psychologist, that she would likely suffer another breakdown if forced to testify before members of defendant’s family, the court properly found that there was an overriding interest justifying the exclusion at issue (see People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]; see also People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Frost
NY · 2003 · confidence medium
The evidence elicited at the hearings pertaining to the potential witnesses’ extreme fear of testifying in open court was sufficient to establish an overriding interest, satisfying the first prong of the Waller test (see People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Abar (2×)
NY · 2003 · confidence medium
We may disturb an Appellate Division determination on this issue only if it lacks any record support (People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134, 142 [2002]; People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917-918 [1998]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Berroa
NY · 2002 · confidence medium
Whether a conflict of interest operates on the defense is a mixed question of law and fact (see People v Harris, 99 NY2d 202, 210 [2002]; People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917-918 [1998]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
NY · 2002 · confidence medium
Whether a conflict operates on the defense is a mixed question of law and fact (see People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913, 917-918 [1998]; see also People v Berroa, 99 NY2d 134 [decided today]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re the Arbitration between Megatouch Used Cars & Trucks, Inc. & New York State Dispute Resolution Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
The compulsory arbitration provision applies to both the New Car Lemon Law (see General Municipal Law § 198-a) and the Used Car Lemon Law (see General Municipal Law § 198-b) (see Matter of American Motors Sales Corp. v Brown, 152 AD2d 343 , 345 n [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 709 [1990]; see also Matter of Royal Chrysler-Oneonta [Dunham], 243 AD2d 1007, 1008-1009 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 913 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re the Arbitration between Megatouch Used Cars & Trucks, Inc. & New York State Dispute Resolution Ass'n
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
The compulsory arbitration provision applies to both the New Car Lemon Law (see General Municipal Law § 198-a) and the Used Car Lemon Law (see General Municipal Law § 198-b) (see Matter of American Motors Sales Corp. v Brown, 152 AD2d 343 , 345 n [1989], lv denied 75 NY2d 709 [1990]; see also Matter of Royal Chrysler-Oneonta [Dunham], 243 AD2d 1007, 1008-1009 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 913 [1998]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Green
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
This was not a stage of the trial at which defendant had the right to be personally present (People v Ramirez, 192 AD2d 382 , lv denied 81 NY2d 1078 ; People v Davis, 166 AD 2d 280 , lv denied 77 NY2d 837 ; see also, People v Ming Li, 91 NY2d 913 ).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Walker v. State (3×)
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
These courts have generally reasoned that, in considering the legality of a partial closure, a “less stringent standard [is] justified because a partial closure does not implicate the same secrecy and fairness concerns that a total closure does.” Woods, 977 F.2d at 76 (citations omitted); see also People v. Chan, 230 A.D.2d 165 , 656 N.Y.S.2d 22, 27-28 (1997), aff'd, 91 N.Y.2d 913 , 669 N.Y.S.2d 527 , 692 N.E.2d 558 (N.Y.1998) (upholding limited closure of courtroom because of concerns about witness).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ming Li, Appellant; The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hok Ming Chan, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 24, 1998.
692 N.E.2d 558
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Elan Gerstmann, New York City, and Edward S. Panzer for Ming Li, appellant., Virginia A. LoPreto, New York City, for Hok Ming Chan, appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 85%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Minnesota (1)

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendants were convicted of first degree kidnaping for their roles in the abduction and beating of Fang Kin Wah, a Chinese national who was smuggled into this country by a Mr. Zhang upon Fang’s promise to pay him $25,500. When Fang was unable to pay, a group of men, including defendants, forcibly took Fang from the restaurant where he was working and held him in a Bronx apartment; he was repeatedly beaten by defendants over a 12-hour period. The details of the crime, defendants’ arrest, and subsequent proceedings are fully set forth in the decision of the Appellate Division (230 AD2d 165). The main issues on this appeal are whether (1) the court below improperly closed the courtroom to a group of men during a portion of the complainant’s testimony at defendants’ suppression hearing; and (2) whether the joint representation of Li and co-defendant Mei Zheng denied Li the effective assistance of counsel. We conclude that[*917] neither these, nor any of the other issues raised by defendants, warrant reversal.

During the lunch recess of the third day of the suppression hearing, in the middle of Fang’s testimony, the witness became extraordinarily distraught at the sight of a small group of men waiting outside the courtroom. The court conducted an informal hearing on the record in the jury room, during which Fang, in obvious emotional distress, expressed grave fear that the men were members of the same Chinese gang that had kidnaped and beaten him. Indeed, when Fang was asked by the Trial Judge to leave the jury room, he refused and continued to express fear for himself and his family. Ultimately, he had to be forcibly removed by several court officers. The trial court concluded, based on Fang’s demeanor and his testimony, that Fang would not be able to continue if forced to testify in front of the men. The court also concluded that Fang was sincerely concerned for his life and the lives of his family, specifically noting that he appeared to be crying and was "extremely upset.” Finally, the court decided that it would be futile to ask the men in the group whether any of them had threatened Fang or intended to harm him.

Under these extraordinary circumstances we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding certain individuals during the remainder of the complainant’s testimony that day. It found that Fang’s emotional reaction was genuine and implicitly concluded that he would be unable to complete his testimony with the men in the courtroom. This could have severely undermined the truth seeking function of the court, an overriding interest justifying the court’s determination. The exclusions were carefully and specifically tailored in that they related only to the men who had caused Fang’s emotional distress. The court’s order was also extremely limited in duration, lasting only during the remaining portion of Fang’s testimony that afternoon. For the reasons stated by the majority at the Appellate Division, we also reject defendants’ contention that their absence from this informal hearing mandates reversal.

Defendant Li contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney had a conflict of interest in representing both Li and codefendant Zheng. The existence of a potential conflict between defense counsel and multiple defendants does not in and of itself require reversal of a conviction (P eople v Allen, 88 NY2d 831, 832). Even where there is a significant possibility of a conflict of interest, the question[*918] whether the potential conflict "operated” to the defendant’s detriment and bore a "substantial relationship to the conduct of [his] defense” (People v Recupero, 73 NY2d 877, 879) presents a mixed question of law and fact. The Appellate Division’s determination that any such conflict did not operate to the defendant’s detriment is supported by the record and is not subject to our further review (CPL 470.35; see also, People v Alicea, 61 NY2d 23, 31).

We have examined defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

In each case: Order affirmed in a memorandum.