People v. Winkler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Mollen, P. J.
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether the existence of a contingency fee arrangement such as in the case at bar between the defendant and his attorney in a criminal case constitutes a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel (US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6). We hold that such an arrangement violates the defendant’s constitutional rights, as a matter of law, and accordingly grant the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and order a new trial.
The defendant was charged along with an accomplice, Merrill…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Richard Winkler v. John Keane, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Haybeck v. Prodigy Services Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Landsman v. MossAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. WinklerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.