10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1969–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Snuszki v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2012That contention is unpreserved for our review “inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for the record and neither formally objected nor requested any relief” with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 ; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 , lv denied 8 NY3d 980 ). 2012That contention is unpreserved for our review “inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for the record and neither formally objected nor requested any relief’ with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 [2007]; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 980 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Abrongreen2 sentences2012That contention is unpreserved for our review “inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for the record and neither formally objected nor requested any relief” with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 ; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 , lv denied 8 NY3d 980 ). 2012That contention is unpreserved for our review “inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for the record and neither formally objected nor requested any relief’ with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 [2007]; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 980 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnstongreen2 sentences2012That contention is unpreserved for our review “inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for the record and neither formally objected nor requested any relief” with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274 , lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 ; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 , lv denied 8 NY3d 980 ). 2012That contention is unpreserved for our review “inasmuch as defendant merely noted [that the jurors had observed him in shackles] for the record and neither formally objected nor requested any relief’ with respect to that issue (People v Johnston, 43 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1007 [2007]; see People v Abron, 37 AD3d 1163 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 980 [2007]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ennisgreen2 sentences2009Our recent decision in People v Ennis ( 11 NY3d 403, 410 [2008]) explains the framework we use to decide issues like this: “A claim that defense counsel’s representation was compromised by a conflict of interest requires two inquiries. 2009Our recent decision in People v Ennis ( 11 NY3d 403, 410 [2008]) explains the framework we use to decide issues like this: "A claim that defense counsel's representation was compromised by a conflict of interest requires two inquiries. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Powersgreen2 sentences1996As such, we see "no reason why the defendant should be allowed to examine a prosecuting attorney at a post trial hearing if he could not do so at trial” (State v Jackson, supra, 322 NC, at 258, 368 SE2d, at 842 ; see also, State v Powers, supra, 92 Ohio App, at 409, n 2, 635 NE2d, at 1304, n 2 ). 1996As such, we see "no reason why the defendant should be allowed to examine a prosecuting attorney at a post trial hearing if he could not do so at trial” (State v Jackson, supra, 322 NC, at 258, 368 SE2d, at 842 ; see also, State v Powers, supra, 92 Ohio App, at 409, n 2, 635 NE2d, at 1304, n 2 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Supremegreen1 sentence1994After a post-trial hearing on that issue, the court determined that the prosecutor had not called "the witness solely or primarily in order to impeach the witness and thereby place otherwise inadmissible evidence before the jury” (People v Wieber, 202 AD2d 789, 790 , lv denied 84 NY2d 834 ; see, People v Trower, 183 AD2d 928, 929 , lv denied 80 NY2d 910 ). | 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. Tirado
green
1 sentence2004Thus, the alleged misconduct by "Ms. W" was not sufficiently supported by sworn allegations of fact to entitle defendant to a post-trial hearing to inquire whether "Ms. W" gave truthful answers during the voir dire and/or whether or not "Ms. W" was under the influence of psychoactive and intoxicating substances during the course of jury selection, trial and deliberations. ( People v. Morales , 121 AD2d 240 ; People v. Salaam , 187 AD2d 363 , aff'd , 83 NY2d 51 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Salaam
green
1 sentence2004Thus, the alleged misconduct by "Ms. W" was not sufficiently supported by sworn allegations of fact to entitle defendant to a post-trial hearing to inquire whether "Ms. W" gave truthful answers during the voir dire and/or whether or not "Ms. W" was under the influence of psychoactive and intoxicating substances during the course of jury selection, trial and deliberations. ( People v. Morales , 121 AD2d 240 ; People v. Salaam , 187 AD2d 363 , aff'd , 83 NY2d 51 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Salaam
green
1 sentence2004Thus, the alleged misconduct by "Ms. W" was not sufficiently supported by sworn allegations of fact to entitle defendant to a post-trial hearing to inquire whether "Ms. W" gave truthful answers during the voir dire and/or whether or not "Ms. W" was under the influence of psychoactive and intoxicating substances during the course of jury selection, trial and deliberations. ( People v. Morales , 121 AD2d 240 ; People v. Salaam , 187 AD2d 363 , aff'd , 83 NY2d 51 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Stokes
green
1 sentence2002A previous Anders brief was determined to be inappropriate in this appeal ( 95 NY2d 633 ). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1996As such, we see "no reason why the defendant should be allowed to examine a prosecuting attorney at a post trial hearing if he could not do so at trial” (State v Jackson, supra, 322 NC, at 258, 368 SE2d, at 842 ; see also, State v Powers, supra, 92 Ohio App, at 409, n 2, 635 NE2d, at 1304, n 2 ). 1996As such, we see "no reason why the defendant should be allowed to examine a prosecuting attorney at a post trial hearing if he could not do so at trial” (State v Jackson, supra, 322 NC, at 258, 368 SE2d, at 842 ; see also, State v Powers, supra, 92 Ohio App, at 409, n 2, 635 NE2d, at 1304, n 2 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1995That error may be cured, however, by a post-trial hearing (see, People v Hope, 67 AD2d 754,755 ; People v Reingold, supra; People v Williams, 36 AD2d 1018 ), which should address the nature of the leg restraint, the extent to which it was visible to the jury and the reasons for its necessity, as well as the number of Sheriff's Deputies present and the reasons for their presence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Reingold
green
1 sentence1995That error may be cured, however, by a post-trial hearing (see, People v Hope, 67 AD2d 754,755 ; People v Reingold, supra; People v Williams, 36 AD2d 1018 ), which should address the nature of the leg restraint, the extent to which it was visible to the jury and the reasons for its necessity, as well as the number of Sheriff's Deputies present and the reasons for their presence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bervy v. Bervy
neutral
1 sentence1995That error may be cured, however, by a post-trial hearing (see, People v Hope, 67 AD2d 754,755 ; People v Reingold, supra; People v Williams, 36 AD2d 1018 ), which should address the nature of the leg restraint, the extent to which it was visible to the jury and the reasons for its necessity, as well as the number of Sheriff's Deputies present and the reasons for their presence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Wieber
green
1 sentence1994After a post-trial hearing on that issue, the court determined that the prosecutor had not called "the witness solely or primarily in order to impeach the witness and thereby place otherwise inadmissible evidence before the jury” (People v Wieber, 202 AD2d 789, 790 , lv denied 84 NY2d 834 ; see, People v Trower, 183 AD2d 928, 929 , lv denied 80 NY2d 910 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Droz
green
1 sentence1978Overall, there was no inadequacy of counsel to merit overturning the determination made (cf. People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462-463 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Leonti
green
1 sentence1969We also think, however, that enough was adduced at the post-trial hearing to warrant a new trial (People v. Leonti, 262 N. Y. 256 ; People V. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.