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.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2013 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. Maggettegreen2 sentences2013Even if the admission into evidence of the entire conversation was error, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error in this regard contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Maggette, 244 AD2d 575, 576 [1997]). 2013Even if the admission into evidence of the entire conversation was error, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error in this regard contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Maggette, 244 AD2d 575, 576 [1997]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2013Even if the admission into evidence of the entire conversation was error, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error in this regard contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Maggette, 244 AD2d 575, 576 [1997]). 2013Even if the admission into evidence of the entire conversation was error, the error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error in this regard contributed to his conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Maggette, 244 AD2d 575, 576 [1997]). | 2 | 2 |
Deck v. Missourired2 sentences2013The defendant also contends that the County Court erred in directing him to be shackled behind bunting during the trial (see Deck v Missouri, 544 US 622, 630 [2005]). 2013The defendant also contends that the County Court erred in directing him to be shackled behind bunting during the trial (see Deck v Missouri, 544 US 622, 630 [2005]). | 2 | 2 |
| 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. Maldonado
neutral
1 sentence2005The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce the audiotape in rebuttal is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Bailey, 12 AD3d 377 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 741 [ 2004]; People v Maldonado, 212 AD2d 808 [1995]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2005The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce the audiotape in rebuttal is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Bailey, 12 AD3d 377 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 741 [ 2004]; People v Maldonado, 212 AD2d 808 [1995]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Bailey
neutral
1 sentence2005The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce the audiotape in rebuttal is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Bailey, 12 AD3d 377 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 741 [ 2004]; People v Maldonado, 212 AD2d 808 [1995]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Lester
neutral
1 sentence2005The defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice when one of the prosecutors testified in rebuttal, solely to authenticate an audiotape of a conversation with a defense witness (see People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294 [1981]; People v Cannady, 243 AD2d 642 [1997]; People v Strawder, 106 AD2d 672 [1984]; People v Lester, 99 AD2d 611 [1984]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Strawder
green
1 sentence2005The defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice when one of the prosecutors testified in rebuttal, solely to authenticate an audiotape of a conversation with a defense witness (see People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294 [1981]; People v Cannady, 243 AD2d 642 [1997]; People v Strawder, 106 AD2d 672 [1984]; People v Lester, 99 AD2d 611 [1984]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Cannady
green
1 sentence2005The defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice when one of the prosecutors testified in rebuttal, solely to authenticate an audiotape of a conversation with a defense witness (see People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294 [1981]; People v Cannady, 243 AD2d 642 [1997]; People v Strawder, 106 AD2d 672 [1984]; People v Lester, 99 AD2d 611 [1984]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Paperno
green
1 sentence2005The defendant failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prejudice when one of the prosecutors testified in rebuttal, solely to authenticate an audiotape of a conversation with a defense witness (see People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294 [1981]; People v Cannady, 243 AD2d 642 [1997]; People v Strawder, 106 AD2d 672 [1984]; People v Lester, 99 AD2d 611 [1984]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1996Although the failure of the People to disclose the conversation was a violation of Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 ), the defense counsel did not request this information, and there was no "reasonable probability” that this error contributed to the verdict. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Figueroa
green
1 sentence1996Accordingly, vacatur of the defendant’s judgment of conviction is not required (see, People v Scott, 216 AD2d 592 ; People v Figueroa, 213 AD2d 669 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence1996Accordingly, vacatur of the defendant’s judgment of conviction is not required (see, People v Scott, 216 AD2d 592 ; People v Figueroa, 213 AD2d 669 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Feld
green
1 sentence1972(Cf. People v. Roper, 17 N Y 2d 711; cf. People v. Feld, 305 N. Y. 322 .) The tape was the best evidence of the conversation and no claim is made that it was not clear or intelligible. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Katz v. United States
green
1 sentence1969Appellants say, however, that the teaching of these cases has been made obsolete by Katz v. United States ( 389 U. S. 347 ), which held that the interception of a private telephone conversation by attaching an electronic device on the outside of a public telephone booth used by one of the parties to the conversation was a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.