Loading…
You are here:  Home  >  Constitutional Law  >  5th Amendment
Latest

I’ll Take “Improper Declarations of Mistrial” for $2,000.00: Applying the Protection Against Double Jeopardy

By   /  June 1, 2012  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law 

Gavel 3

The petitioner, a hunter from Lumberton, New York, faced retrial following the declaration of a mistrial at the county court. The petitioner sought a motion to stay retrial in order to seek “a writ of prohibition [which would] preclud[e] a retrial on the criminal charges” against the petitioner on the grounds of double jeopardy.

Read More →
Latest

Turn-Coat Disclosure: The Importance of Following Procedure

By   /  June 1, 2012  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law 

Grand Jury Room

In Turturro v. City of New York, the Supreme Court of the State of New York held that the defendant’s use of grand jury minutes from a prior related criminal proceeding, for the purpose of impeaching a witness in the subsequent civil proceeding, was precluded. The decisions from the United States Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, and the New York Court of Appeals case, People v. Rosario, are essential to analyzing the decision in Turturro and the potential impact such a decision will have, because they lay foundation for the issue of disclosure. In addition, the court in Turturro relied heavily on precedent, which suggested balancing the grand jury secrecy with the potential for serving a public purpose through disclosure. Such judicial discretion requires a standard procedure for disclosure. Although Turturro presents a unique situation, considering the Government is both in possession of the grand jury minutes and acting as defendant, the rationale set forth in these influential cases is useful in determining the impact Turturro will have on the judicial system.

Read More →
Latest

New York’s Grant of Greater Fifth Amendment Rights to Sexual Predators in SOMTA Proceedings

By   /  June 1, 2012  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law 

Silenced Mouth

In New York v. Suggs, the New York County Supreme Court denied the State’s motion to call the respondent to testify against his will in an Article 10 proceeding. The State sought to call the respondent as a witness in order to prove that the respondent suffered from a Mental Abnormality under Article 10 of New York State’s Mental Hygiene Law, titled the Sexual Management and Treatment Act (“SOMTA”).

Read More →
Latest

Trial Error Blunder: Compounded Use of Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence for Impeachment and Summation Purposes is Not Harmless

By   /  June 1, 2012  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure 

Bill of Rights

A detailed federal and New York State analysis regarding the use of post-arrest silence is examined in this case note. The defendant in this action appealed his conviction of two counts of second degree attempted murder and first degree attempted robbery. After his arrest, the defendant was questioned by law enforcement officers yet remained silent

Read More →
Latest

Business Interests Cases—October 2009 Term

By   /  June 1, 2011  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law, Copyright Law, Patent Law 

Supreme Court Facade

The Supreme Court heard a variety of business interests cases in the October 2009 Term. The Term included several cases on the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), federal jurisdiction, antitrust, and a long-awaited case on patents. The Court is increasingly hearing business cases, and this Term was of particular interest to those following the receptiveness of the Roberts Court to business interests.

Read More →
Latest

Recent Case: People v. Gibson

By   /  June 1, 2011  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law 

DNA

Jeffrey D. Gibson appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County, where he was convicted of robbery in the first degree, based on DNA evidence which, unbeknownst to him, the police acquired from a discarded cigarette butt.

Read More →
Latest

Recent Case: People v. Williams

By   /  June 1, 2011  /  5th Amendment, Constitutional Law 

Jail Cell

In a consolidated appeal, five defendants challenged the imposition of Post-Release Supervision (“PRS”) after they completed the terms of their incarceration and were released from prison. Each defendant claimed that this PRS procedure was tantamount to imposing a second punishment for the same crime, prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause of both the United States and New York State Constitutions.

Read More →