Legal Opinion

People v. Marks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 16, 1990PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The People concede that reversal is required because the deliberating jury was not "continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer” (CPL 310.10; People v Coons, 75 NY2d 796). Failure to sequester the jury during deliberations is an error which " 'affect[s] the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law’ ” (People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 310, quoting People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295, affd 432 US 197). Although the parties agreed to let the jurors go home for the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. People v. PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. People v. AhmedNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. People v. CoonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. People v. DasherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. D'AlviaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API