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.
11 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2019 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. Echevarriagreen2 sentences2019The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted closure of the courtroom to the general public ( see Waller v Georgia , 467 US 39 [1984]; People v Echevarria , 21 NY3d 1, 12-14 [2013], cert denied sub nom. 2017The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted a limited closure of the courtroom (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]; People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d at 12-14 ). | 5 | 6 |
People v. Ramosgreen2 sentences2011The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted a limited closure of the courtroom (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 497 [1997], cert denied sub nom. 2011The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted closure of the courtroom (see Waller v Georgia, 467 US 39 [1984]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 497 [1997], cert denied sub nom. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Kinggreen1 sentence2019Johnson v New York , 571 US 1111 [2013]; People v King , 151 AD3d 633, 634 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1020 [2017], cert denied __ US __, 138 S Ct 1449 [2018]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waller v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2019The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted closure of the courtroom to the general public ( see Waller v Georgia , 467 US 39 [1984]; People v Echevarria , 21 NY3d 1, 12-14 [2013], cert denied sub nom. 2018The evidence at a Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted a limited closure of the courtroom during an undercover officer's testimony ( see Waller v Georgia , 467 US 39 [1984]), and the closure did not violate defendant's right to a public trial. | 11 | 2010–2019 |
Martinez v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2011Ayala v New York, 522 US 1002 [1997]). 2011Ayala v New York, 522 US 1002 [1997]). | 3 | 2010–2011 |
Patton v. Link
neutral
1 sentence2019Johnson v New York , 571 US 1111 [2013]; People v King , 151 AD3d 633, 634 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1020 [2017], cert denied __ US __, 138 S Ct 1449 [2018]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Williams v. California
green
1 sentence2019Johnson v New York , 571 US 1111 [2013]; People v King , 151 AD3d 633, 634 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1020 [2017], cert denied __ US __, 138 S Ct 1449 [2018]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Pierre v. Pierre
green
1 sentence2017The undercover officer gave testimony of a type that “has consistently been held to demonstrate a substantial probability that the officer’s undercover status and safety would be jeopardized by testifying in an open courtroom” (People v Gonzalez, 145 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]), and it satisfied the requirement of a particularized showing. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Flores
green
1 sentence2017The undercover officer gave testimony of a type that “has consistently been held to demonstrate a substantial probability that the officer’s undercover status and safety would be jeopardized by testifying in an open courtroom” (People v Gonzalez, 145 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1184 [2017]), and it satisfied the requirement of a particularized showing. | 1 | 2017–2017 |