In a much-anticipated decision, an Albany, N.Y., appeals court ruled Thursday that the allowance of cameras in a criminal trial without a defendant's consent does not automatically require reversal. Dashing the defense community's hopes, the justices ruled that reversal is required "only if defendant demonstrates that she was deprived of a fair trial due to actual prejudice resulting from the presence of the cameras during the trial."
February 06, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
An appeals court in Albany, N.Y., ruled Thursday that the allowance of cameras in a criminal trial without the consent of the defendant does not automatically require reversal.
The decision by the Appellate Division, 3rd Department holds that only actual prejudice resulting from the presence of cameras entitles the defendant to a new trial.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
