People v. Santos

7 Citing cases

  1. Tyson v. Keane

    991 F. Supp. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 6 times
    Finding petitioner failed to establish Dr. Yonovitz's "linguistic discourse analysis" was scientifically reliable

    Ake does not require payment for experts unless the defendant makes a specific request and shows how an expert's analysis would aid his defense. See Little v. Armontrout, 835 F.2d at 1243-44; Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d at 711-12; People v. Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790, 790-91, 579 N.Y.S.2d 130, 131 (2d Dep't) (no error to deny adjournment for defendant to obtain expert witness who was not identified to the court and where defendant failed to demonstrate how the expert's opinion "would be material or favorable to him"), appeal denied, 79 N.Y.2d 953, 583 N.Y.S.2d 207, 592 N.E.2d 815 (1992). Third, and most important, Tyson did not present sufficient evidence to the state court to demonstrate that "linguistic discourse analysis" would be admissible expert testimony in a New York court.

  2. People v. Williams

    276 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

    Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment to obtain a fingerprint expert (see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284; People v. Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790; People v. Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.

  3. People v. Houghton

    245 A.D.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

    The court properly denied defendant's mid-trial request for an adjournment to secure the services of a voice analysis expert witness who was not identified and the value of whose testimony was speculative at best. We note that defendant was aware for more than five months prior to trial that the prosecution had a tape recording purporting to be of defendant's voice but defendant took no steps to pursue this issue until the trial had started ( see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 N.Y.2d 270, 283-284; People v. Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 953). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

  4. People v. Carpenter

    240 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 13 times

    The basis for counsel's motion for public funds to retain an expert was that he did not believe that a reasonable or rational person would kill another for $2,500 and that he wished to retain an expert to explore the possibility of presenting psychiatric evidence during the trial. We do not believe, based upon that showing, that County Court's denial of the application was an improvident exercise of its discretion (see, People v Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790, 791, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 953). Next, defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his application for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.

  5. People v. Drummond

    233 A.D.2d 339 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to present a defense as a result of the court's refusal to grant him a further adjournment to secure the testimony of a retired detective. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the witness would present testimony material to the case and favorable to his position ( see, Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270, 283-284; People v Singleton, 41 NY2d 402, 405-406; People v Santos, 179 AD2d 790, 791). The defendant had ample time to insure the detective's presence at trial and it cannot be said that he exercised diligence and. was free of neglect in this regard ( People v Coates, 157 AD2d 843; People v Vargas, 150 AD2d 513; People v Daniels, 128 AD2d 632).

  6. People v. Grant

    226 A.D.2d 1092 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 7 times

    Memorandum: The requests for an adjournment and a mistrial, based upon defendant's alleged need to obtain further psychiatric evaluations, were properly denied. Defendant had ample opportunity to obtain such evaluations in support of a possible insanity defense prior to the commencement of trial ( see, People v. Herring, 225 A.D.2d 1065; People v. Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790, 791, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 953). County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal ( see, People v. Montgomery, 224 A.D.2d 914). Contrary to defendant's contention, the court had the benefit of an updated presentence report.

  7. People v. Caceres

    187 A.D.2d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

    The defense counsel requested the adjournment immediately prior to the close of the prosecution's case so that he might try to engage an expert witness to challenge the conclusions of the police chemist. Since the witness was unidentified, any argument as to the relevancy and materiality of the testimony is merely speculative (see, People v Santos, 179 A.D.2d 790, 791; People v Daniels, 128 A.D.2d 632, 633). In addition, the approximately nine-month period between the defendant's arrest and the trial afforded the defense counsel ample opportunity to obtain an independent analysis of the contents of the envelopes purchased from the defendant.