TRY ME!
Weight Of Evidence Review
Summary
In People v. Danielson, the New York Court of Appeals clarified that an appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror when reviewing the weight of the evidence. The court independently evaluates the evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences, to determine if the jurys verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In a disorderly conduct case under N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20, the court must assess whether the defendants actions, such as leading a protest, were sufficient for conviction. Additionally, the court examines the constitutionality of police intervention in maintaining public order, ensuring it aligns with free speech rights. Reasonable regulation of public assemblies is constitutional if it is nondiscriminatory and maintains public order.Full Conversation
Whether the conviction of the defendant under subsections * and * of N.Y. Penal Law § *.* was against the weight of the evidence. The standard for weight-of-the-evidence review is stated at People v. Danielson, * N.E.2d *, * (N.Y. *).
this is the issue I am posed with and the standard is the weight of the evidence so I have to include * sentences on that standard for the court to apply in my thesis paragraph idk how to
Sure, I can help with that. Here are two sentences you can include in your thesis paragraph:
"In People v. Danielson, the New York Court of Appeals established that an appellate court, when reviewing the weight of the evidence, acts similarly to a 'thirteenth juror.' The court must independently evaluate the evidence, considering credibility issues and the reasonable inferences that can be made, to decide if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence."
"In People v. Danielson, the New York Court of Appeals established that an appellate court, when reviewing the weight of the evidence, acts similarly to a 'thirteenth juror.' The court must independently evaluate the evidence, considering credibility issues and the reasonable inferences that can be made, to decide if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence."
dont write yet
Got it! If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to let me know.
On August *, *, Defendant Barlov was leading a protest at the entrance of the consulate of Thuringia on East Sixty-Fourth Street in Manhattan. The Chief Officer of the consulate phoned the nearby Nineteenth Precinct to ask for assistance in controlling a “commotion” that resulted from the protest. A police officer from the Nineteenth Precinct, who had been dispatched to the scene, observed the protest for approximately an hour and was thus able to witness all of the pertinent occurrences.
still dont I am going to put a bunch of info from the court opinion
Case Rating: *
It sounds like you are working on a legal issue related to the weight of evidence in a protest case. To better assist you, could you provide more specific details about the legal issue or question you have? This will help me give you more accurate information.
It sounds like you are working on a legal issue related to the weight of evidence in a protest case. To better assist you, could you provide more specific details about the legal issue or question you have? This will help me give you more accurate information.
Defendant was charged with disorderly conduct, pursuant to N.Y.P.L. § *.* [*] and [*], as a result of her behavior while leading the protest demonstration. At the conclusion of the trial testimony, the Defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal [TOD]. The court stated that it would put aside the motion until the court had concluded its deliberation on the evidence presented. After its deliberations, the court found that the People sustained their burden to prove all elements of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt; the court thus denied the TOD, noting that defendant had preserved the issue of conviction’s merits for appeal. The court sentenced Defendant to eight days incarceration, sentence suspended pending appeal.
Case Rating: *
It looks like you are dealing with a legal issue concerning the weight of the evidence in a disorderly conduct case under N.Y.P.L. § *.* [*] and [*]. Here are some general points to consider:
- People v. Danielson standard: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror."
- The court independently evaluates evidence and credibility.
- The court determines if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Is there a specific question or aspect you need further clarification on?
It looks like you are dealing with a legal issue concerning the weight of the evidence in a disorderly conduct case under N.Y.P.L. § *.* [*] and [*]. Here are some general points to consider:
- People v. Danielson standard: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror."
- The court independently evaluates evidence and credibility.
- The court determines if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Is there a specific question or aspect you need further clarification on?
The evidence at trial showed that in her behavior while leading the protest Defendant did more than merely create an inconvenience to people passing by or attempting to enter the consulate; she willfully accosted people provoking angry responses and interfering with people who were attempting to enter the consulate for legitimate purposes. And she did so in a way that created the possibility of a violent altercation. This evidence is sufficient for conviction under section * of the statute.
Case Rating: *
It sounds like you are dealing with a legal issue involving the evaluation of evidence in a disorderly conduct case. You might want to focus on how the court’s findings align with the standard set forth in *People v. Danielson*. Do you need any specific information or assistance regarding the appellate process or the application of the weight-of-the-evidence standard in this context?
It sounds like you are dealing with a legal issue involving the evaluation of evidence in a disorderly conduct case. You might want to focus on how the court’s findings align with the standard set forth in *People v. Danielson*. Do you need any specific information or assistance regarding the appellate process or the application of the weight-of-the-evidence standard in this context?
scene. Additionally – for the purpose of maintaining order in the street – the officer requested Defendant to move her protest to a safer position across the street from the consulate. Defendant disregarded the officer’s warning and refused to comply with the officer’s request to move the protest across the street, upon which the officer arrested her. This evidence is sufficient for conviction under section * of the statute.
Case Rating: *
It appears you are looking for guidance on how to frame your argument regarding the standard for weight-of-the-evidence review in a protest-related disorderly conduct case. Here's a concise way to incorporate the standard:
- People v. Danielson: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror".
- The court must independently evaluate the evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences.
- Determine if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Do you need further help with any specific part of your argument?
It appears you are looking for guidance on how to frame your argument regarding the standard for weight-of-the-evidence review in a protest-related disorderly conduct case. Here's a concise way to incorporate the standard:
- People v. Danielson: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror".
- The court must independently evaluate the evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences.
- Determine if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Do you need further help with any specific part of your argument?
Defendant also moved to dismiss the case against her on the ground that the police intervention in the circumstances of this case violated Defendant’s constitutional right to free speech. Defendant does not argue that the law itself under which she was convicted is unconstitutional. Her challenge is rather an as-applied challenge: that the application of the law to terminate her protest demonstration was unconstitutional.
Case Rating: *
Here are some important points to consider for your argument:
- People v. Danielson: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror".
- Independently evaluate evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences.
- Determine if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Address the constitutionality of the police intervention under the First Amendment.
Is there a specific aspect you need further assistance with?
Here are some important points to consider for your argument:
- People v. Danielson: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror".
- Independently evaluate evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences.
- Determine if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Address the constitutionality of the police intervention under the First Amendment.
Is there a specific aspect you need further assistance with?
Defendant’s free speech claim fails. Police have the responsibility to maintain order in the streets so that all can go about their business, regardless of their political views, religious beliefs, and so on. “There is no unconstitutional infringement of the rights of free speech and assembly when government regulates by reasonable, appropriate, and nondiscriminatory means the time, place and manner of use of the streets for public assemblies in the interest of maintaining public order and keeping the streets open and available for movement.” People v. Pesola, * N.Y.S.2d *, * (Crim. Ct., N.Y. County *) (citations omitted).
Case Rating: *
It looks like you are dealing with a complex legal issue that involves both the weight of the evidence and a free speech claim in a disorderly conduct case. Given the details you provided, here are a few pointers you might find useful:
- People v. Danielson: Focus on how the appellate court should act as a "thirteenth juror," independently evaluating the credibility and reasonable inferences from the evidence.
- Free Speech Claim: Emphasize that reasonable, appropriate, and nondiscriminatory regulation of time, place, and manner of public assemblies is constitutional to maintain public order (People v. Pesola).
Do you have any specific questions or need further assistance on a particular aspect?
It looks like you are dealing with a complex legal issue that involves both the weight of the evidence and a free speech claim in a disorderly conduct case. Given the details you provided, here are a few pointers you might find useful:
- People v. Danielson: Focus on how the appellate court should act as a "thirteenth juror," independently evaluating the credibility and reasonable inferences from the evidence.
- Free Speech Claim: Emphasize that reasonable, appropriate, and nondiscriminatory regulation of time, place, and manner of public assemblies is constitutional to maintain public order (People v. Pesola).
Do you have any specific questions or need further assistance on a particular aspect?
Here the police simply enforced reasonable rules and issued lawful orders to achieve that purpose. The police showed no hostility to the purpose of the protest. There is no evidence of any discrimination against, or targeting of, the defendant because of the views she expressed. Indeed, even as confrontations began to occur, the police exercised restraint and sought to allow the protest to continue from a safer position across the street – an offer that Defendant rejected.
Case Rating: *
It seems like you are working on framing an argument related to the weight of evidence and constitutional claims in a protest-related disorderly conduct case. Here's how you can structure it:
- People v. Danielson: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror."
- Independently evaluate evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences.
- Determine if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Free Speech Claim: Emphasize that reasonable, appropriate, and nondiscriminatory regulation of time, place, and manner of public assemblies is constitutional to maintain public order (People v. Pesola).
Do you need further assistance with any specific part of your argument?
It seems like you are working on framing an argument related to the weight of evidence and constitutional claims in a protest-related disorderly conduct case. Here's how you can structure it:
- People v. Danielson: The appellate court acts as a "thirteenth juror."
- Independently evaluate evidence, considering credibility and reasonable inferences.
- Determine if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Free Speech Claim: Emphasize that reasonable, appropriate, and nondiscriminatory regulation of time, place, and manner of public assemblies is constitutional to maintain public order (People v. Pesola).
Do you need further assistance with any specific part of your argument?
based off everything I gave I need a main heading of main contention defending Marta barlov with respect to Whether the conviction of the defendant under subsections * and * of N.Y. Penal Law § *.* was against the weight of the evidence. The standard for weight-of-the-evidence review is stated at People v. Danielson, * N.E.2d *, * (N.Y. *).
Case Rating: *
Main Contention Defending Marta Barlov
Whether the conviction of the defendant under subsections * and * of N.Y. Penal Law § *.* was against the weight of the evidence. The standard for weight-of-the-evidence review is stated at People v. Danielson, * N.E.2d *, * (N.Y. *).
Whether the conviction of the defendant under subsections * and * of N.Y. Penal Law § *.* was against the weight of the evidence. The standard for weight-of-the-evidence review is stated at People v. Danielson, * N.E.2d *, * (N.Y. *).
I need a couple sentences for my thesis paragraph highlighting the standard of review
Case Rating: *
In *People v. Danielson*, the New York Court of Appeals established that an appellate court, when reviewing the weight of the evidence, acts similarly to a "thirteenth juror." The court must independently evaluate the evidence, considering credibility issues and the reasonable inferences that can be made, to decide if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
In *People v. Danielson*, the New York Court of Appeals established that an appellate court, when reviewing the weight of the evidence, acts similarly to a "thirteenth juror." The court must independently evaluate the evidence, considering credibility issues and the reasonable inferences that can be made, to decide if the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
what do you mean credibility issues
Case Rating: *
Credibility issues refer to the trustworthiness and reliability of the witnesses and their testimonies. When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the court considers whether the witnesses' statements are believable and consistent, and whether they logically support the jury's verdict.
Does that help clarify things for you?
Credibility issues refer to the trustworthiness and reliability of the witnesses and their testimonies. When reviewing the weight of the evidence, the court considers whether the witnesses' statements are believable and consistent, and whether they logically support the jury's verdict.
Does that help clarify things for you?
Start a new chat