Paul Shechtman

June 18, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a partner at Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman and an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School where he teaches Evidence, analyzes a recent decision where the issue before the Court of Appeals was the admissibility of the evidence of uncharged burglaries. In a unanimous opinion, he says, the Court concluded that the trial judge had "erred by failing to issue a limiting instruction to cure the potential prejudicial effect of the evidence regarding the uncharged burglaries on the attempted burglary and possession of burglar's tools counts."

By Paul Shechtman

9 minute read

June 24, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a partner at Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman and an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School where he teaches Evidence, writes that it has been 27 years since Gary Cone was sentenced to death for murdering an elderly couple. In those years, Mr. Shechtman notes, Cone's case has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court three times - a saga that speaks loudly (and poorly) about our criminal justice system.

By Paul Shechtman

10 minute read

September 07, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a member of Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, analyzes an amendment which provides that juror testimony may be used to determine "whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict into the verdict form." Regrettably, Mr. Shechtman concludes, when compared to existing case law in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the amendment may actually limit the instances in which juror testimony can be introduced to correct errors in the jury's reporting of its verdict.

By Paul Shechtman

7 minute read

November 03, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a member of Stillman & Friedman, writes that a recent unpublished opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considers a hearsay issue that would make an especially challenging question on a law school examination.

By Paul Shechtman

11 minute read

July 19, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a partner at Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, discusses Michigan v. Bryant, where the Supreme Court will review a case where statements made to police by a wounded man were deemed testimonial and inadmissible, as they were made 30 minutes after and six blocks away from the shooting. But that conclusion may prove simplistic.

By Paul Shechtman

9 minute read

January 04, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a partner at Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, writes that since the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on Apprendi's "recidivism exception," the New York Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit may get a fourth opportunity to opine on the constitutionality of the PFO statute.

By Paul Shechtman

12 minute read

June 23, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a partner with Stillman & Friedman, analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court's new approach to the Confrontation Clause.

By Paul Shechtman

9 minute read

September 19, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a member of Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, writes that by drawing the line between statements to police and statements to acquaintances, the Second Circuit in Wexler is less than faithful to Williamson. Wexler recalls Lenny Bruce's famous remark: the Supreme Court thinks it "runs the store," but "the minute it turns [its back]," the lower courts "start changing everything."

By Paul Shechtman

8 minute read

August 30, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Paul Shechtman, a partner at Stillman, Friedman & Shechtman, writes that the 2009-2010 term fulfilled Chief Judge Lippman's promise: the Court heard more criminal cases than in any year in the past decade, and ruled on topics such as the Confrontation Clause, collateral consequences of guilty pleas and televised testimony.

By Paul Shechtman

16 minute read