Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. First Meridian Planning Corp.green2 sentences2011The duplicity principle is designed to protect the accused against successive prosecutions in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the US and NY Constitutions (see generally People v First Meridian Planning Corp., 86 NY2d 608, 615 [1995]). 2006The duplicity principle is designed to protect the accused against successive prosecutions in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause (People v First Meridian Planning Corp., 86 NY2d 608, 615 [1995]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2011Nonetheless, the fundamental and compelling reasons behind the duplicity principle present interest of justice and constitutional concerns that warrant our review (see People v Jones, 165 AD2d 103, 109 [1991], lv denied 77 NY2d 962 [1991]). 2011Nonetheless, the fundamental and compelling reasons behind the duplicity principle present interest of justice and constitutional concerns that warrant our review (see People v Jones, 165 AD2d 103, 109 , lv denied 77 NY2d 962 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Becoatsgreen1 sentence2026"To allow an unpreserved claim of duplicitousness to be raised on appeal would open the door to abuse," since a defendant could choose to let a duplicitous indictment stand at trial and then, on appeal, "obtain a new trial on the basis of an error they consciously decided not to challenge" ( see People v Becoats , 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011], cert denied 566 US 964 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Terrell Allengreen1 sentence2026Defendant did not raise a duplicity claim at trial; thus, his claim is unpreserved ( see People v Allen , 24 NY3d 441, 448 [2014]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramseygreen1 sentence2011“State and Federal constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy are deemed so fundamental that they are preserved despite the failure to raise them at the trial level” (People v Michallow, 201 AD2d 915, 916 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 874 [1994]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2006It also ensures juror unanimity because "[i]f two or more offenses are alleged in one count, individual jurors might vote to convict a defendant of that count on the basis of different offenses; the defendant would thus stand convicted under that count even though the jury may never have reached a unanimous verdict as to any one of the offenses" ( People v Keindl, 68 NY2d at 418 ). [3] Although it may be possible that an unexplained comparison of a prospective juror to a specific person could carry an inference of discriminatory intent, if defendant believed that the oblique reference in this | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smocumgreen1 sentence2006It also ensures juror unanimity because "[i]f two or more offenses are alleged in one count, individual jurors might vote to convict a defendant of that count on the basis of different offenses; the defendant would thus stand convicted under that count even though the jury may never have reached a unanimous verdict as to any one of the offenses" ( People v Keindl, 68 NY2d at 418 ). [3] Although it may be possible that an unexplained comparison of a prospective juror to a specific person could carry an inference of discriminatory intent, if defendant believed that the oblique reference in this | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Keindl
green
2 sentences2006It also ensures juror unanimity because “[i]f two or more offenses are alleged in one count, individual jurors might vote to convict a defendant of that count on the basis of different offenses; the defendant would thus stand convicted under that count even though the jury may never have reached a unanimous verdict as to any one of the offenses” (People v Keindl, 68 NY2d at 418 ). . 2006It also ensures juror unanimity because "[i]f two or more offenses are alleged in one count, individual jurors might vote to convict a defendant of that count on the basis of different offenses; the defendant would thus stand convicted under that count even though the jury may never have reached a unanimous verdict as to any one of the offenses" ( People v Keindl, 68 NY2d at 418 ). [3] Although it may be possible that an unexplained comparison of a prospective juror to a specific person could carry an inference of discriminatory intent, if defendant believed that the oblique reference in this | 2 | 1994–2006 |
Yelloweagle v. United States
green
1 sentence2026"To allow an unpreserved claim of duplicitousness to be raised on appeal would open the door to abuse," since a defendant could choose to let a duplicitous indictment stand at trial and then, on appeal, "obtain a new trial on the basis of an error they consciously decided not to challenge" ( see People v Becoats , 17 NY3d 643, 651 [2011], cert denied 566 US 964 [2012]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.