G. E. Weinstein v. Gitters

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• clarifying that this “aversion” does not permit declining to review an ineffectiveness claim that was fully developed on the record and presented on direct appeal
• explaining that there “does not appear to be an appreciable differen[ce] between these standards” (quotation marks omitted)
• affirming that this approach remains “good 2 The Court previously summarily affirmed all other aspects of Rendon-Reyes’s conviction and sentence following his counsel’s filing of a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967
• “Because a violation of the right to a public trial is a structural claim, it is not subject to harmless error review; however, where, as here, the defendant failed to object to the exclusion, we review the claim for plain error.”
• “[A]ttempted assault under N.Y.P.L. § 120.05(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).