Legal Opinion
People v. Pitts
New York Court of Appeals
Decided February 15, 2005PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
G.B. Smith, J.
These appeals present two questions: (1) does CPL 440.30 (1-a) impose a due diligence requirement, limiting the time by which a defendant must bring a postconviction motion requesting DNA testing and (2) does a defendant who brings such a motion bear the burden of establishing that the specified DNA evidence exists and is available in quantities sufficient to be tested?
The courts below denied defendants’ postconviction motions without a hearing, ruling that defendants did not bring timely motions for relief and therefore did not exercise the requisite due…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. AhlersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- People v. BarnwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. BarnwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- People v. PittsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- People v. PittsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
3Cited by47 opinions
- Blake v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2006
- The People v. Howard S. WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 2015
- The People v. Clifford JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 2014
- Newton v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- People v. SwiftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.