People v. Torres’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[g]aps in the chain of custody may be excused when circumstances provide reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence" People v. Hawkins , 11 N.Y.3d 484 , 494 [ 872 N.Y.S.2d 395 , 900 N.E.2d 946 ] ... (2008) (citation omitted). In view of the testimony of the CI and the detectives, who strip-searched the CI before and after the controlled buy and constantly observed him as he approached the controlled buy, interacted with [petitioner] and thereafter return to the detectives ( see People v. Green , 90 A.D.3d 1151 , 1154 [ 934 N.Y.S.2d 262 ] ... (2011), lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 994 [ 945 N.Y.S.2d 649 , 968 N.E.2d 1005 ] ... (2012) ; People v. Long , 9 A.D.3d 495 , 497-498 [ 779 N.Y.S.2d 640 ] ... (2004), and inasmuch as [petitioner] does not claim that the evidence was tampered with ( see People v. Wilkerson , 167 A.D.2d 662 , 664 [ 563 N.Y.S.2d 245 ] ... (1990), lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 958 [ 573 N.Y.S.2d 653 , 578 N.E.2d 451 ] ... (1991), we conclude that the People provided the necessary reasonable assurances as to identity and unchanged condition of the narcotics. Moreover, any gaps in the chain of custody go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Torres v. O'Meara

2. “[t]he trial testimony established that the CI was strip-searched prior to the controlled buy to ensure that he was not concealing any contraband, drugs or currency. The detectives gave the CI marked money for the controlled buy and equipped him with a wire. The detectives observed the CI approach the location for the subject transaction, and one detective testified that she witnessed the CI and [petitioner] meet on the street and that she saw them "exchange hands." [Petitioner] subsequently went inside a building and the CI walked away. The detectives continued their surveillance of the CI and watched him make no other stops as he returned to their vehicle. The CI turned over two glassine envelopes to the detectives. Upon their return to the police station, a strip search of the CI revealed nothing on his body.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Torres v. O'Meara

3. “[w]hile the detective who witnessed the subject transaction did not see what was physically exchanged between the two of them, the CI testified that, after he asked [petitioner] whether he had "crack," "[petitioner] said yes. He gave me the crack. I gave him the money, and I walked back to the [o]fficer." Furthermore, even though the CI did not identify [petitioner] as the seller, the detective who witnessed the exchange between the CI and [petitioner] positively identified [petitioner] at trial as the seller. As such, viewing the evidence in a neutral light, we conclude that the weight of the evidence supported the jury's verdict.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Torres v. O'Meara