find violation in New York

2010Both the prosecution and the defense argued on the record and the court reserved decision and requested case law authority from the ADA and the defense attorney. 5 Batson requires a three-part test for the court to find a violation: first, that the persons peremptorily dismissed from the jury panel are a cognizable and protected class of people and were dismissed solely on that basis; second, the accused party must set forth a neutral reason or reasons for each challenged striking of a juror; and third, whether the neutral reason to strike is a mere pretext to the “Batson violation.” (See Peop

2009The People made a proper showing under Waller v Georgia ( 467 US 39 [1984]) to justify closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover officer.

2005Because of this, the standard of proof necessary for this Court to find a violation is a fairly high one of "clear and convincing evidence." FCA §846-a; Williams v Williams, 230 AD2d 916 (2d Dept 1996).

2005(Cf. Mohamed v Siffrain, supra; McNamara v Wood, supra.) Nor does this court find such requirement onerous.

2005(Cf. Mohamed v Siffrain, supra; McNamara v Wood, supra.) Nor does this court find such requirement onerous.

2002The results in Nykorchuck and Young may be contrasted with the result in McDermott v Torre (supra).

2001Cf. People v. Harris, supra. It is as likely that those jurors who favor life without the possibility of parole will persuade death-prone jurors to change their vote to avoid a non-unanimous verdict, and its associated lenient sentence.

1989However, taken within the context of the long and otherwise proper summation, and considering the instructions given by the trial court concerning the responsibility of the jury to evaluate the evidence, we conclude that the effect of the improper remarks was minimal and, that given the strong evidence against defendant, the error committed was harmless (People v Robinson, 135 AD2d 586 , lv denied 71 NY2d 902 ).

1986(Matter of Patrick G., 92 Misc 2d 126 .) The moving papers do not allege actual prejudice, which must be shown in order for the court to find a violation of the due process rights secured to the respondent by the Federal Constitution.

1986(United States v Marion, 404 US 307 ; United States v Lovasco, 431 US 783 .) The due process requirements of the New York State Constitution, however, are broader than the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

1986(United States v Marion, 404 US 307 ; United States v Lovasco, 431 US 783 .) The due process requirements of the New York State Constitution, however, are broader than the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Federal Constitution.