People v. Cromwell
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to his counsel’s failure to argue that the lineup identifications should have been suppressed because the complainants were together before and after the lineup, so they “may” have spoken to one another. As the contention that the complainants may have spoken to one another is purely speculative and unsupported by the hearing record, the defendant has not met his burden of proving that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. BaldiNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. LaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. HeideNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- People v. EnnisNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- People v. HawleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. RoblesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. AlfonsoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- People v. ThompsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. PolancobatistaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.