31 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2024 5 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. Frattagreen2 sentences2019"Although there is a fundamental precept that a criminal defendant has the right to testify in his or her own defense guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions . . . , it is well settled that, ordinarily, the trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right" ( People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 [1994]; People v Mauricio , 8 AD3d 1089, 1090 [4th 2018In any event, " [a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right'" ( People v Marcelle , 120 AD3d 833, 834 , quoting People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 ; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 ; People v Marquis A ., 145 AD3d 61, 66 ; People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593, 1595 ; People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 ; People v Menner , 2 AD3d 650 ). | 7 | 8 |
People v. Dolangreen2 sentences2022Assuming that defendant was not required to preserve that contention [*6]for our review ( see People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017]), under these circumstances, the court was not obligated to ascertain if defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right ( see People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468-1469 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]; People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; compare People v Morgan , 149 AD3d 1148, 1152-1154 [2017]; People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 33-36 [2014], lv denied 2018In any event, " [a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right'" ( People v Marcelle , 120 AD3d 833, 834 , quoting People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 ; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 ; People v Marquis A ., 145 AD3d 61, 66 ; People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593, 1595 ; People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 ; People v Menner , 2 AD3d 650 ). | 6 | 8 |
People v. Roblesgreen2 sentences2024With the exclusion of "exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances," a "trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his or her right" ( People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 34 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 22 NY3d 1202 [2014]). 2022Assuming that defendant was not required to preserve that contention [*6]for our review ( see People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017]), under these circumstances, the court was not obligated to ascertain if defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right ( see People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468-1469 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]; People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; compare People v Morgan , 149 AD3d 1148, 1152-1154 [2017]; People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 33-36 [2014], lv denied | 5 | 6 |
People v. Cosbygreen2 sentences2023"The trial court has no obligation to inform a defendant of [the] right to testify or to ascertain if the failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of [the] right to do so" ( People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]; see People v Richards , 177 AD3d 1280 , 1282 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 994 [2020]). 2019"The trial court has no obligation to inform a defendant of his or her right to testify or ascertain if the failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his or her right to do so" ( People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). | 5 | 6 |
James Brown v. Christopher Artuzgreen2 sentences2016Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not present any of the “ ‘exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances’ ” in which “ ‘judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant [would] be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected’ ” (Robles, 115 AD3d at 34 ; see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 , 79 n 2 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]). 2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 4 | 4 |
Brown v. Artuzgreen2 sentences2016Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not present any of the “ ‘exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances’ ” in which “ ‘judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant [would] be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected’ ” (Robles, 115 AD3d at 34 ; see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 , 79 n 2 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]). 2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 3 | 4 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2024Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel ( see People v Smith , 68 NY2d 737, 738 [1986], cert denied 479 US 953 [1986]). 2024Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel ( see People v Smith , 68 NY2d 737, 738 [1986], cert denied 479 US 953 [1986]). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Hung Thien Lygreen2 sentences2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). 2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences2004Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his allocution demonstrates a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal from any and all rulings made by the trial court in connection with his case, including the jury verdict, in exchange for the negotiated sentence (see People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761 [1993]). 2001However, because neither the court nor defendant himself addressed the waiver in any way during the plea proceeding, we conclude that the plea allocution of defendant fails to “demonstrate [] a voluntary and intelligent waiver of [his] right to appeal” (People v Allen, 82 NY2d 761, 763 ; cf, People v Schinelie, 277 AD2d 970, 971 ). | 1 | 5 |
People v. Pilatogreen2 sentences2022Assuming that defendant was not required to preserve that contention [*6]for our review ( see People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017]), under these circumstances, the court was not obligated to ascertain if defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right ( see People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468-1469 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]; People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; compare People v Morgan , 149 AD3d 1148, 1152-1154 [2017]; People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 33-36 [2014], lv denied 2020We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in failing to sua sponte question him to ensure the voluntariness of his decision to forgo testifying at trial. "[T]he trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right" ( People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added]). | 1 | 4 |
People v. Mirabellagreen1 sentence2023To the extent that defendant relatedly contends that defense counsel deprived him of his right to testify, that contention is based primarily on matters outside the record and must be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( see Richards , 177 AD3d at 1282; see generally People v Mirabella , 187 AD3d 1589, 1589-1590 [4th Dept 2020], lv dismissed 36 NY3d 930 [2020]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bowengreen1 sentence2022Finally, defendant has failed to meet his burden on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim ( see People v Bowen , 185 AD3d 1219, 1221 [2020]; People v Izzo , 104 AD3d 964, 967 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Izzogreen1 sentence2022Finally, defendant has failed to meet his burden on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim ( see People v Bowen , 185 AD3d 1219, 1221 [2020]; People v Izzo , 104 AD3d 964, 967 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1005 [2013]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morgangreen1 sentence2022Assuming that defendant was not required to preserve that contention [*6]for our review ( see People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017]), under these circumstances, the court was not obligated to ascertain if defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right ( see People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468-1469 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]; People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; compare People v Morgan , 149 AD3d 1148, 1152-1154 [2017]; People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 33-36 [2014], lv denied | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2019"Although there is a fundamental precept that a criminal defendant has the right to testify in his or her own defense guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions . . . , it is well settled that, ordinarily, the trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right" ( People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 [1994]; People v Mauricio , 8 AD3d 1089, 1090 [4th | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Maxwell Rangel Joelson, AKA El Santerogreen | 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. Elbert
green
2 sentences2022Assuming that defendant was not required to preserve that contention [*6]for our review ( see People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017]), under these circumstances, the court was not obligated to ascertain if defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right ( see People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468-1469 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]; People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; compare People v Morgan , 149 AD3d 1148, 1152-1154 [2017]; People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 33-36 [2014], lv denied 2016With regard to defendant’s decision not to testify, it is settled that “[a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right” (People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; accord People v Robles, 115 AD3d 30, 34 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1202 [2014]; see People v Fratta, 83 NY2d 771, 772 [1994]; People v Cosby, 82 AD3d 63, 66 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 857 [2011]). | 6 | 2011–2022 |
People v. Morris
green
2 sentences2022Assuming that defendant was not required to preserve that contention [*6]for our review ( see People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017]), under these circumstances, the court was not obligated to ascertain if defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right ( see People v Madigan , 169 AD3d 1467 , 1468-1469 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 1033 [2019]; People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; compare People v Morgan , 149 AD3d 1148, 1152-1154 [2017]; People v Robles , 115 AD3d 30, 33-36 [2014], lv denied 2020We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in failing to sua sponte question him to ensure the voluntariness of his decision to forgo testifying at trial. "[T]he trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his [or her] right" ( People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593 , 1595 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 951 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added]). | 3 | 2019–2022 |
United States v. Courtney Dave Pennycooke Courtney Pennycooke
green
2 sentences2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). 2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 3 | 2003–2014 |
Ortega v. O'Leary
green
2 sentences2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). 2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 3 | 2003–2014 |
Heath v. United States Parole Commission
green
2 sentences2024Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel ( see People v Smith , 68 NY2d 737, 738 [1986], cert denied 479 US 953 [1986]). 2024Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel ( see People v Smith , 68 NY2d 737, 738 [1986], cert denied 479 US 953 [1986]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Vicente Lira, A/K/A Vicente Lira-Hidrogo
green
2 sentences2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). 2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Edward Dryden
neutral
2 sentences2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). 2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Michael K. Leggett
green
2 sentences2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). 2014However, “in exceptional, narrowly defined circumstances, judicial interjection through a direct colloquy with the defendant may be required to ensure that the defendant’s right to testify is protected” (United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d at 12 ; see United States v Hung Thien Ly, 646 F3d 1307, 1317 [11th Cir 2011]; United States v Leggett, 162 F3d at 247 ; United States v Dryden, 141 F3d 1186 [10th Cir 1998] [table; text at 1998 WL 104724 , 1998 US App LEXIS 4186 (1998)]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258, 261 [7th Cir 1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d at 746 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. McCall
green
1 sentence2018In any event, " [a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right'" ( People v Marcelle , 120 AD3d 833, 834 , quoting People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 ; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 ; People v Marquis A ., 145 AD3d 61, 66 ; People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593, 1595 ; People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 ; People v Menner , 2 AD3d 650 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Marquis A.
green
1 sentence2018In any event, " [a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right'" ( People v Marcelle , 120 AD3d 833, 834 , quoting People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 ; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 ; People v Marquis A ., 145 AD3d 61, 66 ; People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593, 1595 ; People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 ; People v Menner , 2 AD3d 650 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Marcelle
green
1 sentence2018In any event, " [a] trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant's failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right'" ( People v Marcelle , 120 AD3d 833, 834 , quoting People v Dolan , 2 AD3d 745, 746 ; see People v Fratta , 83 NY2d 771, 772 ; People v Marquis A ., 145 AD3d 61, 66 ; People v Pilato , 145 AD3d 1593, 1595 ; People v Cosby , 82 AD3d 63, 66 ; People v Menner , 2 AD3d 650 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Correa v. United States
green
1 sentence2003Nor was there any exceptional circumstance present which would have mandated the trial court inquiring into the voluntariness of the defendant’s failure to testify (see Brown v Artuz, supra at 79, n 2; United States v Joelson, 7 F3d 174, 178 [1993] , cert denied 510 US 1019 [1993]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Mirrione v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sumlin v. United States
green
1 sentence2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Brown v. Brown
green
1 sentence2003A trial court does not have a general obligation to sua sponte ascertain if the defendant’s failure to testify was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right (see Brown v Artuz, 124 F3d 73 [1997], cert denied 522 US 1128 [1998]; United States v Pennycooke, 65 F3d 9 [1995]; United States v Teague, 953 F2d 1525 [1992], cert denied 506 US 842 [1992] ; United States v Edwards, 897 F2d 445 [1990], cert denied 498 US 1000 [1990]; Ortega v O’Leary, 843 F2d 258 [1988], cert denied 488 US 841 [1988]; Siciliano v Vose, 834 F2d 29 [1987]; United States v Bernloehr, 833 F2d 749 [1987]; United States | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Davis green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Green neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Seaberg green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Callahan green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Coleman green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Parker green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Moissett green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Montford green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Adams v. City of New York green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. White green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Clinton Community Hospital Corp. v. Southern Maryland Medical Center green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| People v. Vargas green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.