green
Positive treatment
3.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1950 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1950
1988
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Cardoza
We further conclude that defendant was not entitled to a charge on circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as the proof at trial regarding the identity of the perpetrator was not entirely circumstantial ( cf. People v James , 147 AD3d 1211, 1212-1214 [3d Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1128 [2017]; see generally People v Bretagna , 298 NY 323, 325-326 [1949], cert denied 336 US 919 [1949], reh denied 336 US 922 [1949]; People v Duffy , 124 AD2d 258, 260 [3d Dept 1986], lv denied 69 NY2d 710 [1986]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lipsky
Thus, though the two rules shared as common background the fear of convicting the innocent, the now-defunct Ruloff role required no more than direct proof of death, and would have been satisfied by a defendant’s confession or admission, either of which constitutes direct eyewitness testimony of the defendant himself (People v Licitra, 47 NY2d 554, 559 ; see People v Bretagna, 298 NY 323, 326 , cert den 336 US 919 ; Millstein, op. cit., p 1208, n 25). 3 What remains, then, when there is a confession or admission, is only CPL 60.50’s requirement of “additional proof that the offense charge…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Cruz
Next, we find no error in permitting the People to introduce the taped telephone call between defendant and the victim into evidence as that conversation contained statements by defendant that were “sufficiently inculpatory to warrant admission [into evidence]” (People v Swart, 273 AD2d 503, 504 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 908 [2000]) as admissions on his part (see People v Johnson, 250 AD2d 922 , 928 [1998], affd 93 NY2d 254 [1999]; People v Burke, 96 AD2d 971, 971-972 [1983], affd 62 NY2d 860 [1984]; see also People v Bretagna, 298 NY 323, 326 [1949], cert denied 336 US 919 [1949]; Prince,…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Keller
It concludes, "There will be another time I hope and things will be the way they should.” The letter is a declaration by the accused inconsistent with his innocence and, as such, is an admission against his penal interest (see, People v Harris, 148 AD2d 469 ; see also, People v Bretagna, 298 NY 323 , cert denied 336 US 919 ; Richardson, Evidence § 212 [Prince 10th ed]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union (C. I. O.)
v.
Wirtz, Circuit Court Judge
v.
Wirtz, Circuit Court Judge
No. 510.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 28, 1949.
Herbert Resner for petitioners. Walter D. Ackerman, Jr., Attorney General of Hawaii, Michiro Watanabe, Deputy Attorney General, and Thomas W. Flynn for Wirtz, Circuit Court Judge; and C. Nils Tavares for Maui Agricultural Co., Ltd., respondents.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.