CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Coello

Stefan Coello, who previously pled guilty to selling counterfeit social security and alien registration cards, was found in possession of counterfeit laminates resembling INS I-688 Temporary Resident cards. The Government moved for a pre-sentence ruling to classify these laminates as "identification documents" under 18 U.S.C. § 1028. The Court, presided over by District Judge BATTS, ruled that while the laminates themselves are not complete identification documents, their possession constitutes an attempt to possess false identification documents, possession of document-making implements, and an "attempt to produce identification documents". Therefore, the Government's motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Counterfeit DocumentsIdentity Theft18 U.S.C. § 1028Document-Making ImplementAttempted PossessionAttempted ProductionImmigration DocumentsINSFederal CrimeSentencing Guidelines
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02649 [162 AD3d 25]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2018

People v. Hargrove

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order to vacate Rosean Hargrove's judgment of conviction for murder and assault and grant a new trial. The Supreme Court's decision was based on newly discovered evidence revealing a pattern of police misconduct by Detective Louis Scarcella, who was instrumental in obtaining the sole identification testimony against Hargrove. The Appellate Division found that this evidence, coupled with inconsistencies in the initial police investigation and the handling of forensic evidence, created a probability of a more favorable verdict for the defendant at a new trial. The court emphasized that the People's case was exceptionally weak, relying solely on Crosson's identification, which was problematic given the detective's documented history of facilitating false identification testimony and the questionable circumstances surrounding the identification procedures.

Criminal Justice SystemPolice MisconductFalse IdentificationNewly Discovered EvidenceCPL 440.10Due ProcessWitness CredibilitySuppression HearingConviction Integrity UnitForensic Evidence
References
77
Case No. W2012-01059-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2013

State of Tennessee v. Joshua Smith

The Defendant-Appellant, Joshua Smith, was convicted by a Shelby County jury of aggravated robbery. He appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress the victim's identification, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and that his sentence was excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court. The court found that the photographic lineup was not unduly suggestive and the identification process was proper. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence, including the victim's identification, was sufficient to support the conviction, and the sentencing was within the trial court's discretion.

Aggravated RobberySufficiency of EvidenceMotion to SuppressPhotographic IdentificationEyewitness IdentificationAlibi DefenseSentencing AppealCriminal LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1989

People v. Acosta

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of robbery in the first degree, stemming from two separate incidents at a cosmetics store where he displayed a weapon. The convictions were based on jury trial findings and guilty pleas, leading to a sentence as a violent predicate felon. Key evidence included a latent fingerprint recovered from the crime scene and eyewitness identifications by store employees. On appeal, the defendant challenged the suggestiveness of the photographic identification procedures, but the court found these arguments without merit. The judgments of conviction were unanimously affirmed, with the court noting strong identification testimony and fingerprint evidence.

Robbery First DegreeViolent Predicate FelonJury TrialGuilty PleaFingerprint EvidenceEyewitness IdentificationPhotographic IdentificationLineup IdentificationIdentification ProcedureAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Orse

The defendant appealed a conviction for robbery in the first degree from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The appellate court found two significant errors during the trial: the improper admission of rebuttal testimony solely to impeach the credibility of the main alibi witness on a collateral issue, and the erroneous admission of bolstering identification testimony from the arresting officer. Additionally, the jury instructions were flawed as they seemed to shift the burden of proving alibi to the defendant and lacked a similar scrutiny admonition for identification testimony. Considering the tenuous nature of the identification evidence and these cumulative errors, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered in the interest of justice.

Criminal ProcedureEvidentiary ErrorsWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewIdentification TestimonyAlibi DefenseJury Charge ErrorReversible ErrorDiscretionary ReversalInterest of Justice
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Schipski

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Nassau County, convicting him of burglary in the third degree following a guilty plea. The appeal primarily challenged the denial of motions to suppress a statement made to the police and identification testimony. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the police officer's question, asked through a window during an ongoing burglary, did not constitute a Miranda-requiring interrogation but was for safety. Furthermore, the court found no police-arranged identification procedure, thus upholding the refusal to suppress the identification testimony. Lastly, the court determined that the defendant forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment by pleading guilty.

BurglaryMiranda RightsSuppression HearingIdentification TestimonyGuilty PleaAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentDue ProcessConfession Admissibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Green

On January 11, 1990, Sun Ok Kim was assaulted, robbed, and subjected to an attempted burglary. Two weeks later, she identified Kenneth Green in a police lineup. Green subsequently filed a motion to suppress the identification testimony, citing both suggestive lineup procedures and the scientific unreliability of eyewitness identification. The court considered expert testimony regarding the factors affecting eyewitness accuracy, including witness confidence and stress levels, but found no evidence of suggestiveness in the police's conduct. Ultimately, the court denied Green's motion in its entirety, ruling that the scientific arguments related to the weight of the identification evidence, not its admissibility, which remains a question for the jury.

Eyewitness IdentificationSuppression MotionDue ProcessSuggestive LineupScientific ReliabilityYerkes-Dodson LawCriminal ProcedureAdmissibility of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHuman Perception
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1986

People v. Bernier

This case addresses a defendant's appeal challenging his conviction for robbery and weapon possession. The primary issue revolves around the prosecution's failure to provide timely notice of a witness's out-of-court identification, as mandated by CPL 710.30. The court found that the trial court erred by eventually allowing the in-court identification, even with an independent source, because a CPL 710.30 violation requires exclusion of both out-of-court and in-court identifications. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered for one count, while others were dismissed without prejudice for re-presentation to a Grand Jury. The appellate court also determined that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated.

Criminal Procedure LawIdentification TestimonyPreclusion SanctionWade HearingShowup IdentificationIndependent Source DoctrineSpeedy TrialRobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponGrand Jury Proceedings
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1998

People v. Butler

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree for participating in the theft of personal items from a woman in Albany. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging two showup identifications as unduly suggestive and claiming the victim's intoxication rendered the identification procedure suggestive. The court found that the showup identifications were conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and were not suggestive. Furthermore, the court rejected the claim that the victim's intoxication made the procedure unduly suggestive, noting it was a point for cross-examination at trial. The court also dismissed the defendant's claim regarding being unadvised of grand jury proceedings, stating the motion was untimely and the People had satisfied their burden by timely notifying the defendant's attorney. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

RobberySecond Degree RobberyShowup IdentificationGrand Jury ProceedingsAdmissibility of EvidenceDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawAlbanyAppealWitness Identification
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 140 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational