People v. McDonald
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that a lineup was unduly suggestive because of the purported disparities in height and weight between himself and the fillers, or because of a detective’s comment to a witness that the police had arrested someone (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Saunders, 306 AD2d 502 [2003]). In any event, our review of the photographs of the lineup establishes that the fillers sufficiently resembled the defendant so as not to render the lineup unduly suggestive (see People v Saunders, 306 AD2d at 503). Moreover, the detective’s comment likewise…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. DanielsonNew York Court of Appeals · 2007
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- People v. RiveraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. FabersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. JacksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. BenshitritAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- People v. LassiterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.