Home/Federal/Cases/People v. Goetz
Back to Cases

People v. Goetz

68 N.Y.2d 96 (1986)

Opinion Summary

Established New York's standard for self-defense, holding that the use of deadly force must be judged by an objective reasonable person standard, not the purely subjective belief of the defendant. The 'Subway Vigilante' case involving Bernhard Goetz shaped self-defense law nationwide.

Related Cases

Schenck v. United States

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Upheld the Espionage Act conviction of a man distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I. Justice Holmes introduced the 'clear and present danger' test for limiting free speech, stating that 'the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre.' The clear and present danger test was later replaced by the Brandenburg incitement test.

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Unanimously held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. States must provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot afford them. Clarence Earl Gideon, who had represented himself and lost, was acquitted at retrial with appointed counsel.

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires law enforcement to advise suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation. The now-famous Miranda warnings include the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against the suspect, the right to counsel, and that counsel will be appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Established the modern incitement test for the First Amendment, holding that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. Overruled the earlier 'clear and present danger' test from Schenck, providing the strongest protection for political speech.

United States v. Nixon

418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Unanimously held that the President does not have absolute executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal proceeding. President Nixon was ordered to produce tape recordings and documents subpoenaed by the Watergate special prosecutor. The decision led directly to Nixon's resignation sixteen days later.

Case Information

Court
Court of Appeals of New York
Court Level
State Supreme Court
Date Decided
Tuesday, July 8, 1986
Citation
68 N.Y.2d 96 (1986)
Jurisdiction
New York

Legal Topics

criminal