People v. Flores
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Goberdhan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Cassell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People v. Zakrzewski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People v. Reinfurt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Heidrich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- People v. Rahaman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- People v. Tenace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- People v. Uddin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Bohn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Sivco (Scott) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Faraone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
People v Flores (2018 NY Slip Op 08540)
| People v Flores |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08540 [32 NY3d 1087] |
| December 13, 2018 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, January 23, 2019 |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Alex Flores, Lucio Ramirez, Benigno Aguilar and Emmanuel Flores, Respondents. |
Argued November 15, 2018; decided December 13, 2018
People v Flores, 153 AD3d 182, affirmed.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen (Robert H. Middlemiss and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for appellant.
Leonard J. Levenson, New York City, for respondents.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The trial court committed reversible error by empaneling an anonymous jury. Assuming that trial courts may, under certain circumstances, anonymize jurors, here County Court acted without any factual predicate for the extraordinary procedure. Indeed, the trial court expressly based its decision to empanel an anonymous jury on anecdotal accounts from jurors in unrelated cases and, then, exacerbated the error by taking "no steps to lessen the potential prejudice" to defendants (153 AD3d 182, 193 [2d Dept 2017]).
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.