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.
15 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1867–2012 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Zackowitzgreen2 sentences1977While it is a well-established principle that "[i]n a very real sense a defendant starts his life afresh when he stands before a jury, a prisoner at the bar” (People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197; People v Molineux 168 NY 264 , supra), it is quite conceivable that it would have been proper here for the prosecutor to have introduced the testimony in question after having heard the opening remarks of defense counsel. 1931Judge Cardozo, in the case of People v. Zackowitz ( 254 N. Y. 192 ), said (at pp. 197, 198 and 200): “ In a very real sense a defendant starts his life afresh when he stands before a jury, a prisoner at the bar. * * * Inflexibly the law has set its face against the endeavor to fasten guilt upon him by proof of character or experience predisposing to an act of crime. * * * ‘ The natural and inevitable tendency of the tribunal — whether judge or jury — is to give excessive weight to the vicious record of crime thus exhibited, and either to allow it to bear too strongly on the present charge, or | 1 | 2 |
Sandin v. Connerred1 sentence2012The Due Process Clause, however, “does not protect every change in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner” (Sandin v Conner, 515 US 472, 478 [1995]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nuzzogreen1 sentence1952Hence, we may not overlook a breach thereof as not affecting the substantial rights of an accused within the meaning of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘ ‘ when the purpose and effect of the breach is to create prejudice against the defendant by proof that his character is bad, even if the evidence convinces us of the defendant’s guilt.” (People v. Nuzzo, 294 N. Y. 227, 233, 234 .) The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sweeney v. Woodall
green
1 sentence1978"Considerations fundamental to our federal system require that the prisoner test the claimed unconstitutionality of [her] treatment by [the demanding State] in the courts of that State” (Sweeney v Woodall, 344 US 86, 90 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. . Molineux
green
1 sentence1977While it is a well-established principle that "[i]n a very real sense a defendant starts his life afresh when he stands before a jury, a prisoner at the bar” (People v Zackowitz, 254 NY 192, 197; People v Molineux 168 NY 264 , supra), it is quite conceivable that it would have been proper here for the prosecutor to have introduced the testimony in question after having heard the opening remarks of defense counsel. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Nastasi v. State
green
1 sentence1954(Kugel v. Kalik, 176 Misc. 49 ; Nastasi v. State, 186 Misc. 1051 .) The motion of the State to dismiss the above claim is denied. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Kugel v. Kalik
neutral
1 sentence1954(Kugel v. Kalik, 176 Misc. 49 ; Nastasi v. State, 186 Misc. 1051 .) The motion of the State to dismiss the above claim is denied. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Hogan v. Canavan
green
1 sentence1943The Appellate Division of this court, in this department, had occasion to pass on the provisions of the Correction Law in question, in Matter of Hogan v. Canavan ( 245 App. Div. 391 ). | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Bartholomaus v. Bartholomaus
neutral
1 sentence1941Both on the authority of Bamman v. Erickson (supra) and on principle the court holds that the disability to sue imposed by section 510 of the Penal Law is personal to the prisoner and does not bar the maintenance of a suit by her receiver in supplementary proceedings whose title to the cause of action is the result of an involuntary assignment by operation of law. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Shepard v. United States
green
1 sentence1933In Shepard v. United States ( 290 U. S. 96 ), in an opinion delivered on November 6, 1933, Mr. Justice Cardozo said in part: “ There must be ‘ a settled hopeless expectation ’ (Willes, J., in Reg. v. Peel, 2 F. & F. 21, 22) that death is near at hand, and what is said must have been spoken in the hush of its impending presence. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Bensel v. . Lynch
neutral
1 sentence1933It recites the facts and closes by alleging “ That by reason of the. premises * * * plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant herein in the sum of $5,000," A similar allegation was held in Bensel v. Lynch ( 44 N. Y. 162, 165 ), as predicating the action for the amount of bail and not for damages for an escape. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Metcalf v. . Stryker
neutral
1 sentence1916(Metcalf v. Stryker, 31 N. Y. 255 ; Bensel v. Lynch, 44 id. 162.) The differences in the actions and the pleadings therein are pointed out by the Court of Appeals in Smith v. Knapp ( 30 N. Y. 592 ). | 1 | 1916–1916 |
People v. Whipple
green
1 sentence1908In 1816 (People v. Herrick, 13 Johns. 83 ) Spenoeb, J., said: “ It is laid down as an axiom by almost all the writers on evidence, that the party who would take advantage of the exception that a witness has been convicted of the crimen falsi must have a copy of the record of conviction ready to produce in court.” In People v. Whipple ( 9 Cow. 707 ), in 1827, one Strang had just been convicted by a verdict of a jury as a principal in the murder of whicli Mrs. Whipple, the prisoner at the bar, stood charged as an accessory before the fact. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Murray & Bell v. State
green
1 sentence1885That case is really quite decisive of the present, for in this case it may well be said, as in Bell v. State ( 48 Ala. 675 ), “ we do not think there was any intelligent and intentional waiver in this case.” In Hendrick v. Commonwealth ( 5 Leigh, 709 ), the prisoner “ elected the juror and he took his seat; after another juror was called, one of the counsel stated that the prisoner was acting on his advice in challenging, and in electing the juror had mistaken it.” The court refused to allow the challenge, and this was held error on the appeal, as the juror had not been sworn. | 1 | 1885–1885 |
Ruloff v. . the People
green
1 sentence1872In The Ruloff Case ( 18 N. Y., 179 ), this court reversed the judgment and conviction against the prisoner for the error the court in not directing an acquittal, although the question of power was not raised. | 1 | 1872–1872 |
Alexander v. Peck
neutral
1 sentence1867Beauchamp v. State ( 5 Blackf., 308 ) is to the same effect, and so also is Manly v. State ( 7 Blackf., 593 ); and so Hooker v. The State (4 Ohio R., 348); and so also The People v. Kahle (4 Cal. R., 198). | 1 | 1867–1867 |
Morrison v. Cones
neutral
1 sentence1867Beauchamp v. State ( 5 Blackf., 308 ) is to the same effect, and so also is Manly v. State ( 7 Blackf., 593 ); and so Hooker v. The State (4 Ohio R., 348); and so also The People v. Kahle (4 Cal. R., 198). | 1 | 1867–1867 |
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.