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.
9 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1975–1997 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. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence1997Notwithstanding the defendant’s assertion to the contrary, he was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of trial when his attorney conducted an in-court interview of the confidential informant in his absence, after the court denied the attorney’s application to have the defendant present for her inquiry into the possibility of calling the informant as a defense witness (see, People v Turaine, 227 AD2d 299 ; see generally, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659 ; see also, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 590 ; CPL 260.20). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dokesgreen1 sentence1997Notwithstanding the defendant’s assertion to the contrary, he was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of trial when his attorney conducted an in-court interview of the confidential informant in his absence, after the court denied the attorney’s application to have the defendant present for her inquiry into the possibility of calling the informant as a defense witness (see, People v Turaine, 227 AD2d 299 ; see generally, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659 ; see also, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 590 ; CPL 260.20). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Adriongreen1 sentence1996In the instant case, the record clearly reveals that the police investigators who obtained the search warrant would not have been in the position to make any observations or collect any other information in support of the search warrant without the information initially supplied to them by Sheppard (see, People v Adrion, supra, at 636), whose information was tied to every significant aspect of the People’s proof on the issue of probable cause. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Velezgreen1 sentence1991However, the court also noted that, "no matter how great the risk, if fundamental fairness dictates disclosure, the courts must order it. * * * [T]he People’s only alternative at that point, unpleasant although it might be, would be a dismissal of the charges.” (People v Lind, supra, at 871.) Finally, it was held that the People’s application should suggest the appropriate redaction or paraphrasing, being careful to include as many details as possible, but explaining the reason for each deletion. | 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. Huggins
green
2 sentences1982Such a disclosure at suppression hearings is a matter left to the sound but reviewable discretion of the hearing court (People v Huggins, 36 NY2d 827 ). 1977Such a disclosure at suppression hearings is a matter left to the sound but reviewable discretion of the hearing court (People v Huggins, 36 NY2d 827 ). | 2 | 1977–1982 |
People v. Turaine
green
1 sentence1997Notwithstanding the defendant’s assertion to the contrary, he was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of trial when his attorney conducted an in-court interview of the confidential informant in his absence, after the court denied the attorney’s application to have the defendant present for her inquiry into the possibility of calling the informant as a defense witness (see, People v Turaine, 227 AD2d 299 ; see generally, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 659 ; see also, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 590 ; CPL 260.20). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Castillo
green
1 sentence1996Ultimately, the decision whether to disclose the identity of the informant to the defense is left to the discretion of the trial court (see, e.g., People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578, 583 , cert denied 507 US 1033 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Peterson v. Stafford
green
1 sentence1996Ultimately, the decision whether to disclose the identity of the informant to the defense is left to the discretion of the trial court (see, e.g., People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578, 583 , cert denied 507 US 1033 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Riggins
green
1 sentence1995In rendering its opinion in People v Riggins (supra), the Appellate Division quoted the Court of Appeals in Matter of Campbell v Pesce ( 60 NY2d 165, 169 ), wherein the Court observed: " 'In no instance have we recognized a court’s inherent power to vacate a plea and sentence over defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error apparent on the face of the record and where the proceeding has terminated by the entry of judgment. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Campbell v. Pesce
green
1 sentence1995In rendering its opinion in People v Riggins (supra), the Appellate Division quoted the Court of Appeals in Matter of Campbell v Pesce ( 60 NY2d 165, 169 ), wherein the Court observed: " 'In no instance have we recognized a court’s inherent power to vacate a plea and sentence over defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error apparent on the face of the record and where the proceeding has terminated by the entry of judgment. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Osorio
green
1 sentence1988The prosecutor did offer to grant the informant immunity for his prior statement to the police, and it can be assumed that if the informant testified truthfully at the hearing there would be no prosecution for perjury (People v Shapiro, supra; People v Osorio, supra; People v Priester, 98 AD2d 820 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Priester
green
1 sentence1988The prosecutor did offer to grant the informant immunity for his prior statement to the police, and it can be assumed that if the informant testified truthfully at the hearing there would be no prosecution for perjury (People v Shapiro, supra; People v Osorio, supra; People v Priester, 98 AD2d 820 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Shapiro
green
2 sentences1988The prosecutor did offer to grant the informant immunity for his prior statement to the police, and it can be assumed that if the informant testified truthfully at the hearing there would be no prosecution for perjury (People v Shapiro, supra; People v Osorio, supra; People v Priester, 98 AD2d 820 ). 1988People v Shapiro (supra) indicated that the prosecutor has an obligation to warn a potential witness of his possible liability for false testimony, the only condition being that such warnings not be emphasized to the point where they are transformed into instruments of intimidation. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
In re Jacob WW.
neutral
1 sentence1982In People v West ( 56 AD2d 995, 956 ), a post-Darden case involving a jury verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, the court remarked: “Defendant next claims that the court erred in its refusal to reveal the identity of the informant to the defense. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Alamo
green
1 sentence1979The confidential informant was inextricably involved with the purchase of the cocaine; although he said he was not present at the time of the exchange of the cocaine for the price, he participated in the negotiations almost to the point of excluding the undercover police officer from the conversations, and there were discrepancies between his version of the transaction and the testimony of the purchaser, especially in view of the defendant’s testimony at the trial (cf. People v Alamo, 63 AD2d 6, 7 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Goggins
green
1 sentence1975We reasoned that when probable cause is the issue, as opposed to guilt, the defendant’s rights are amply protected by an in camera examination of the informant by the hearing Judge (People v Darden, supra, p 181 ; People v Goggins, supra, p 168 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Darden
green
1 sentence1975We reasoned that when probable cause is the issue, as opposed to guilt, the defendant’s rights are amply protected by an in camera examination of the informant by the hearing Judge (People v Darden, supra, p 181 ; People v Goggins, supra, p 168 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.