explanation proffered defense (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

explanation proffered defense in New York

13 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2012 0 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Guess neutral
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

2000This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ).

1999That determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ).

61995–2000
People v. Jupiter green
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

2000The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel when the prosecution made a Batson-Kern challenge (see, People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 ) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

1999The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

61997–2000
Hernandez v. New York green
scotus · 1991
2 sentences

2000This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ).

1999That determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ).

51995–2000
People v. Kern green
ny · 1990
2 sentences

2012The Supreme Court also properly determined that the explanation proffered by defense counsel when the prosecution made a reverse Batson-Kern challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a discriminatory intent to exclude male prospective jurors.

2012The Supreme Court also properly determined that the explanation proffered by defense counsel when the prosecution made a reverse Batson-Kern challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a discriminatory intent to exclude male prospective jurors.

42000–2012
Batson v. Kentucky green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

2012The Supreme Court also properly determined that the explanation proffered by defense counsel when the prosecution made a reverse Batson-Kern challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a discriminatory intent to exclude male prospective jurors.

2012The Supreme Court also properly determined that the explanation proffered by defense counsel when the prosecution made a reverse Batson-Kern challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a discriminatory intent to exclude male prospective jurors.

32002–2012
People v. Dixon green
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

2000The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel when the prosecution made a Batson-Kern challenge (see, People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 ) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

1999The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

31997–2000
People v. McCoy neutral
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

2000The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel when the prosecution made a Batson-Kern challenge (see, People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 ) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

1999The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

31997–2000
People v. Hawthorne green
ny · 1992
2 sentences

2000The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel when the prosecution made a Batson-Kern challenge (see, People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 ) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

1999The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873 ; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431 ; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ).

31997–2000
People v. Mondello neutral
nyappdiv · 1993
2 sentences

1999The determination of the Supreme Court is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Garcia, 239 AD2d 599 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

1997The court’s determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

31995–1999
People v. Bailey neutral
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

1999The determination of the Supreme Court is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Garcia, 239 AD2d 599 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

1997The court’s determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

31995–1999
People v. Allen green
ny · 1995
2 sentences

1997The explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a facially-neutral reason sufficient to rebut the People’s prima facie showing of discrimination (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101 ).

1996The explanation proffered by the defense counsel was a facially neutral reason sufficient to rebut the People’s prima facie showing of discrimination (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 109-110 ).

31996–1997
Kern v. New York green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

2012The Supreme Court also properly determined that the explanation proffered by defense counsel when the prosecution made a reverse Batson-Kern challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a discriminatory intent to exclude male prospective jurors.

2012The Supreme Court also properly determined that the explanation proffered by defense counsel when the prosecution made a reverse Batson-Kern challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a discriminatory intent to exclude male prospective jurors.

22012–2012
People v. Jones green
nyappdiv · 1994
2 sentences

1999The determination of the Supreme Court is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Garcia, 239 AD2d 599 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

1997The court’s determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

21997–1999
People v. Hernandez green
ny · 1990
2 sentences

1997The court’s determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

1995This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ; People v Thomas, 210 AD2d 515 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

21995–1997
People v. Garcia green
nyappdiv · 1997
1 sentence

1999The determination of the Supreme Court is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, Hernandez v New York, supra; People v Garcia, 239 AD2d 599 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

11999–1999
People v. Richie green
nyappdiv · 1995
1 sentence

1997The burden of going forward then shifted to the People, who failed to prove that the peremptory challenge was racially motivated (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ; People v Moore, 231 AD2d 532 ; People v Rudd, 225 AD2d 710 ).

11997–1997
People v. Rudd green
nyappdiv · 1996
1 sentence

1997The burden of going forward then shifted to the People, who failed to prove that the peremptory challenge was racially motivated (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ; People v Moore, 231 AD2d 532 ; People v Rudd, 225 AD2d 710 ).

11997–1997
People v. Moore neutral
nyappdiv · 1996
1 sentence

1997The burden of going forward then shifted to the People, who failed to prove that the peremptory challenge was racially motivated (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84 ; People v Moore, 231 AD2d 532 ; People v Rudd, 225 AD2d 710 ).

11997–1997
People v. Miranda green
nyappdiv · 1995
1 sentence

1996The court’s rejection of defense counsel’s challenge to prospective juror number 8, absent any further showing by the prosecutor that the reason proffered by defense counsel was pretextual, deprived the defendant of his right to a jury of his choice (see, People v Miranda, 220 AD2d 218).

11996–1996
People v. Thomas green
nyappdiv · 1994
1 sentence

1995This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 , affd 500 US 352 ; People v Thomas, 210 AD2d 515 ; People v Guess, 208 AD2d 559 ; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677 ; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462 ).

11995–1995

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check