People v. Diaz

4 Citing cases

  1. Ayala v. Speckard

    131 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that closure was "limited not only because it last[ed] only for the testimony of one witness . . . but also because there [was] no limitation at all on the right of the public or the press to examine the transcript of the officer's testimony"

    Div. 1st Dep't 1997) (mem.); People v. Diaz, 655 N.Y.S.2d 544 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997); People v. Espejo, 655 N.Y.S.2d 973 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 1997) (mem.)

  2. People v. Jones

    96 N.Y.2d 213 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 63 times
    Upholding partial closure caused by screening mechanism where court officer posted outside courtroom during undercover officer's testimony

    The codefendant was at large and a bench warrant had been issued for his arrest. In addition, while the undercover testified that she no longer worked in Brooklyn, she still had occasion to return to there to testify before the Grand Jury and there were still 10 "lost subjects" who had yet to be arrested (see, People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 892; see also, People v. Ramos, supra, 90 N.Y.2d, at 499). The undercover also testified as to threats she had received, although none were particularly related to the instant case (see, People v. Martinez, supra, 82 N.Y.2d, at 443).

  3. People v. Oliphant

    258 A.D.2d 536 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    Moreover, the defendant's family and the defense counsel's colleague were permitted to remain in the courtroom. Accordingly, the defendant's right to a public trial was not violated ( see, People v. Brown, 243 A.D.2d 641; People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Torres

    251 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    The testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v. Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, 76, cert denied 410 U.S. 911) established that the officer was to return to the arrest area for future undercover work, had been threatened previously, had been assaulted by a lost subject who identified him as a police officer, and took precautions to keep his identity secret whenever his presence was required at hearings or trials. Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer was therefore warranted here (see, People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 500, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 574; People v. Pearson, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 443; People v. Pagan, 245 A.D.2d 312; People v. Green, 244 A.D.2d 571; People v. Whiteside, 243 A.D.2d 744; People v. Pryor, 243 A.D.2d 656; People v. Pastrana, 237 A.D.2d 628; People v. Diaz, 237 A.D.2d 457; People v. Nicot, 237 A.D.2d 310). The defendant's Rosario claim is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit.