You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE VERDICT...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE VERDICT AS REPUGNANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals reversed People v Jennings, 2021 NY Slip Op 00944 [191 AD3d 1429], Fourth Dept 2-11-21. The facts were not described:

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that Court. Counsel’s failure to challenge the verdict as repugnant did not render the representation ineffective because the issue was not clear-cut and dispositive given the jury charge … . People v Jennings, 2021 NY Slip Op 06428, Ct App 11-18-21​

 

You might also like
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON A CRIMINAL CONVICTION EXTENDS TO AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION BY AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-EMPLOYER.
DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S OR PROSECUTOR’S KNOWLEDGE; THE MAJORITY HELD THIS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; A TWO-JUDGE DISSENT DISAGREED (CT APP).
EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT ACTED OUT OF ANGER WAS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FINDNG THAT DEFENDANT “RELISHED” THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER STATUTE (CT APP). ​
Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect” Pursuant to Statute With Respect to Fire Fighters’ Mandated Contributions to Pension Plan
Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.
VETERINARY CLINIC MAY BE LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DOG IN THE CLINIC’S WAITING ROOM, BUT THE CLINIC’S LIABILITY SHOULD NOT TURN ON WHETHER THE CLINIC WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THE STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD IMPOSED ON DOG-OWNERS (CT APP).
THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REOPENING THE SUPPRESSION HEARING AFTER THE PEOPLE HAD RESTED TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO PRESENT AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS; THE “ONE FULL OPPORTUNITY” DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY IN THE “PRE-RULING” STAGE OF A SUPPRESSION HEARING (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED... THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION, STATING...