(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relieving defendant’s attorney and appointing new counsel. Attorney’s employer, New York County Defender Services, represented the key government witness in a separate case arising from the same occurrence and refused to permit defendant’s attorney to search for and potentially call him as a witness.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child are affirmed where defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by: 1) not calling an expert witness to testify that the absence of physical evidence on the victim three years after the last alleged incident could indicate the victim was never anally raped by defendant; and 2) failing to object to testimony of various prosecution witnesses recalling the victim’s statements that she was being sexually abused.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly considered the drug factory presumption of Penal Law section 220.25(2); and 2) the decision regarding whether a defendant testifies before the grand jury is a strategic one requiring the expert judgment of counsel, and defense counsel’s refusal to facilitate defendant’s appearance before the grand jury did not amount to per se ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for sexual conduct against a child in the first degree is affirmed where the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting rebuttal testimony intended prove defendant’s sole witness was biased and motivated to fabricate evidence. The Court clarified that the Appellate Division may rely on the record to discern an unarticulated predicate for the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence following conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is affirmed where the sentencing court properly refused defendant’s request to defer payment of a mandatory surcharge imposed under Penal Law section 60.35 that was not subject to the court’s discretion.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree based on a prior conviction for assault in the first degree is vacated and remanded for resentencing. The Court held that the revocation of probation under Penal Code section 60.01 is not the analogue of an annulment of a sentence and concluded that the original sentencing date controls for the purpose of determining the eligible look-back period in Penal Law section 70.04 for prior conviction sentencing.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees is vacated and the case remanded where the police’s seizure of defendant’s clothing from a clear hospital bag without a warrant or defendant’s consent violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a real estate and property action, arising after the Manhattan Department of Buildings revoked plaintiff's erroneously-issued permit for a large outdoor advertising sign, the order of the Appellate Division is reversed where: 1) plaintiff did not acquire a vested right to maintain the sign on its property through its reliance on the erroneously issued permit; and 2) the issue of plaintiff's good-faith reliance on the erroneously-issued permit is properly raised in an application for a zoning variance.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for felony murder and rape is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the defendant from introducing evidence of third-party culpability and such error was not harmless under the circumstances.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for gang assault and weapons possession is reversed where the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's redacted statement to police violated defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and such error was not harmless.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for robbery in the second degree is reversed where the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's out-of-court statements to establish an element of the crime violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree burglary and assault is affirmed where: 1) defendant's right to a trial by jury was not impaired by the trial court's failure to adhere to the statutory procedural protection for excusing potential jurors for hardship; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding defendant's third-party culpability evidence as not probative and speculative; and 3) the prosecutor's reference to defendant's gender in summation was inexcusable and irrelevant, but defense counsel's failure to object was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree intentional murder is affirmed where defendant's attorney did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move to reopen the suppression hearing following a detective's trial testimony about his interview with defendant.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for multiple counts of robbery and larceny is affirmed where the People's use of defendant's non-privileged telephone conversations, made while in custody at Rikers Island, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the dissemination of recordings of conversations at the District Attorney's request does not violate state law.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance is affirmed where defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to object to the legality of his guilty plea and didn't do so, thus failing to preserve his claim challenging the validity of his plea.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for assaults and related offenses is affirmed where a parent or guardian can vicariously consent on behalf of a child to create an audio or video recording of a conversation to which the child is a party, pursuant to Penal Code section 250.00 (2), provided that the parent or guardian has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe that it is necessary in order to serve the best interests of his or her minor child.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree murder and other crimes is affirmed. The Court held that New York's standard for admitting evidence of third-party culpability, articulated in People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351 (2001), is consistent with Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) and does not infringe on a defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree murder and fist degree assault is affirmed where the trial court did not err in refusing to remove three spectators, silently wearing t-shirts bearing a photograph of one of the victims, from the courtroom during summation at defense counsel's request.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In consolidated criminal actions concerning the People's change of their readiness status after having previously filed off-calendar statements of readiness, the Court held that there is a rebuttable presumption that such statements were truthful when made and that defendants can rebut the presumption with a demonstration that the People were not, in fact, ready at the time the statement was filed.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for multiple robberies is reversed and remanded. The Court held that a lineup's suggestiveness should not turn solely on whether a defendant's distinctive feature, here dreadlocks, figured prominently in a witness's prior description to police but can be considered as one factor when a court determines the suggestiveness of a lineup.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter and possession of a weapon is affirmed where the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury to continue deliberating, following the jury's return of a verdict which polling determined not to be unanimous, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed where defendant's trial counsel did not commit ineffective assistance of counsel in pursuing a misidentification defense while not advancing an inconsistent justification defense, after defendant decided on the strategy and denied that he was the person depicted shooting the victim on a surveillance video recording.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree burglary and robbery is affirmed where the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence subscriber information in prepaid cell phone records as nonhearsay evidence within a business record, because the information was not introduced for the truth of the matters asserted.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for coercion in the first-degree relating to defendant's harassment of his ex-girlfriend, both while still living at her apartment and from jail, is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the court committed Apprendi error; and 2) defendant's sought jury instruction for second-degree coercion as a lesser-included offense was not warranted.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors about their views on involuntary confessions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court erred by re-imposing the original sentence after reversal on appeal; and 2) defense counsel's failure to challenge the resentencing was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree robbery is reversed and a new trial ordered where: 1) skin color is a cognizable classification upon which a challenge to a prosecutor's peremptory strikes can be made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and 2) defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination and the prosecutor failed to give a non-discriminatory reason for the juror exclusion at issue.

(Supreme Court of California) - At issue is whether police officers could enter a private residence without a warrant under a community care taking exception, as articulated in People v Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464. The Court concluded any entry that falls short of a perceived emergency or other exigent circumstances does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment and that People v. Ray is disapproved.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The appeals court found that the trial court erred in partially granting a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a warrantless search.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with completed kidnapping but was convicted of attempted kidnapping. Defendant argued that a conviction for a crime he was not charged with violates the Sixth Amendment. The court held that a criminal defendant can be convicted of an attempted crime despite being charged with a completed crime because being charged with a completed crime is sufficient notice that he could be charged with an attempted crime.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated in part. Defendant was convicted of multiple lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argued that the evidence did not support part of the conviction and his sentence is unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed that the evidence supported only two lewd acts on each victim and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remand for new trial. Defendant is a sexually violent predator who is currently receiving treatment at a state mental hospital. He challenged the court order denying his petition to be placed in a conditional release program on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial. The appeals court agreed stating that the prosecutor interfered with Defendant’s right to testify and the trial court erroneously refused to admit his release plan into evidence. The appeals court held that a fair trial is a fundamental right.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an injury action arising from a skiing accident, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant ski resort is affirmed where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of the link between his injuries and the assumed negligence of the defendant.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit against a principal-defendant of a private high school brought by a student's parent-plainitff, alleging that plaintiff's First Amendment right of freedom of assembly and his state-law right to be free from the intentional infliction of emotional distress were violated by defendant in banning him from attending virtually all school events, on or off school property, because of his opposition to defendant's bullying and harassing efforts to compel plaintiff's daughter to remain a member of the girls varsity basketball team, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity, to the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property to attend spectator sports contests to which the public was invited, and caused plaintiff's removal from a non-school, privately owned stadium at which Johnson was present as an invitee of the owner; and 2) reversed in part where qualified immunity should have been granted to defendant the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property for purposes other than attending sports contests, given the lack of an established First Amendment right of general access to school property.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - An award of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits to a former NFL player displaying symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is affirmed where the board of the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan failed to follow a reasoned process or explain the basis of its determination to deny benefits.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a former professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits as former defensive tackle, Larry Tripplett, sought workers' compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his playing career. He argued that he was eligible for benefits in California, but the Fourth Appellate District disagreed, finding that he was ineligible because he was outside the state when he signed his employment contract with the Indianapolis Colts.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that two riders seriously injured while horseback riding in Wisconsin could not pursue negligence claims against trail and stable operators, because their causes of action were barred by Wisconsin's equine-immunity statute, which blocks recovery for most injuries that result from an inherent risk of equine activities. Affirmed summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings against the riders, respectively.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a case where the district attorney sought to prosecute an independent contractor employed by a public entity for their knowing and willful self-dealing it was determined that Government Code prohibitions against these actions by public employees also applied to independent contractors.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a general building contractor did not file a timely court challenge to a citation issued by government inspectors who found a safety violation at a job site. Affirmed dismissal of the contractor's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $1.6 million jury verdict in an individual's asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit. Held that there was no admissible evidence that the defendant company supplied asbestos-cement pipes to a worksite in the 1970s; the only evidence was hearsay.