Articles Posted in Criminal Appellate Cases NY Sup Ct NY County

by

Retired New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Geoffrey Gaulkin released his report in State v. Henderson today June 21, 2010. . The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed judge Gaulkin in May 2009 to serve as special master and to hold hearings and issue a report “to test the validity of our state law standards on the admissibility of eyewitness identification.” According to news comments, the report suggests that eyewitness testimony should be treated more like physical evidence and be subjected to pretrial hearings to assess how reliable it is.

According to a June 21, 2010 New York Times article ” Use of Eyewitnesses in New Jersey Courts Needs Change, Ex-Judge Says” by Richard PÉREZ-PEÑA, the report recommends that”Courts should do more to gauge the accuracy of witnesses to crimes, and to let juries know how flawed their testimony can be, according to a former appellate judge assigned by the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the matter….In particular, [judge Geoffrey Gaulkin] wrote, judges should assess factors that might limit a witness’s reliability in picking someone out of a lineup, either in person or in a photo array…”

Click on the link below the see the complete report:

Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
March 29, 2010 – April 2, 2010.

——————————————————————————–

U.S. Supreme Court, March 30, 2010 Berghuis v. Smith, No. 08–1402 In habeas proceedings brought by an individual convicted of second degree murder by an all-white jury, the Sixth Circuit’s reversal of the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where Duren v. Missouri, 439 U. S. 357 (1979), hardly established — much less “clearly” so — that petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, because petitioner’s evidence gave the Michigan Supreme Court little reason to conclude that the county’s juror assignment order had any significant effect on the representation of African-Americans in the venire.

U.S. Supreme Court, March 31, 2010 Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651 In postconviction proceedings arising from a drug distribution prosecution, after which petitioner faced deportation based on his guilty plea and claimed that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of the plea, denial of postconviction relief is reversed and remanded where, because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, petitioner sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2010 US v. Charlton, No. 08-1797 Defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act are affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to establish that the government purposely discriminated against African-Americans in exercising its peremptory challenge against a juror and thus the district court committed no error – clear or plain – in permitting the government’s peremptory challenge against that prospective juror; and 2) the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. ..
Continue reading

by

December 21, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Hayes, 1802, 4897/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9399; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9207, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …

2. People v Marcellin, 1804, 9043/98, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9401; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9209, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
… appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, …

3. People v Garcia, 1819, 5122/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9376; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, …

4. People v Cordisco, 1825, 4108/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9382; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185, December 17, 2009, Decided, December 17, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …

…
Continue reading

by

December 14, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Padilla, 1712, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 9144; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8976, December 10, 2009, Decided, December 10, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Continue reading

by

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

Beard v. Kindler, No. 08-992 (U.S. Dec. 8, 2009)

“The Court decided a capital habeas matter involving whether Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture rule provided an adequate basis to bar federal habeas review of petitioner’s claims, grant of habeas petition is vacated and remanded where a state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” under the adequate state ground doctrine (and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review) because the state rule was discretionary rather than mandatory).

Continue reading

by

December 7, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Basbus, 1649, 2759/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8964; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8782, December 3, 2009, Decided, December 3, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Continue reading

by

November 26, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Johnson, 1541, 1748/99, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 8682; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8510, November 24, 2009, Decided, November 24, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Continue reading

by

November 18-19, 2009.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

1. People v Castillo, 1331, 3751/00, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 7760; 886 N.Y.S.2d 805; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7589, October 29, 2009, Decided, October 29, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design