People v. Bello, 92 N.E.2d 1209, 1210 (N.Y. 1998).

People v. Ellerbe, 644 N.Y.S.2d 52, 53 (App. Div. 1st Dept 1996).
People v. Valentin, 603 N.Y.S.2d 539, 540 (App. Div. 2d Dept 1993).
People v. Tention, 556 N.Y.S.2d 914 (App. Div. 1st Dept 1990).
People v. Davis, 609 N.Y.S.2d 212, 213 (App. Div. 1st Dept 1994).
People v. Johnson, 657 N.Y.S.2d 27, 28 (App. Div. 1st Dept 1997).
People v. Flocker, 637 N.Y.S.2d 369, 370 (App. Div. 1st Dept 1996).
People v. Wylie, 580 N.Y.S.2d 401, 402 (App. Div. 2d Dept 1992).

Bello, 92 N.E.2d at 1210.

Ellerbe, 644 N.Y.S.2d at 53.
Valentin, 603 N.Y.S.2d at 540.
Tention, 556 N.Y.S.2d at 914.
Davis, 609 N.Y.S.2d at 213.
Johnson, 657 N.Y.S.2d at 28.
Flocker, 637 N.Y.S.2d at 370.
Wylie, 580 N.Y.S.2d at 402.

Main Headings:
I. OVERRIDING INTERST:
a. Sub-point A: The prosecution has met its burden in establishing an
overriding safety and usefulness interest to justify closing the courtroom
during the trial of the defendant.
i. Press Enterprise v. Superior Court of Cal
The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding
interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values
and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to be articulated
along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine
whether the closure order was properly entered.
ii. People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 498 (1997).
Protecting the safety of law enforcement officers, as a general matter,
unquestionably constitutes a compelling interestthe mere possibility that
this safety interest might be compromised by open-court testimony does not
justify abridgement of a defendant's constitutional right to a public trial.

Throughly discuss the Rule Application and dont forget to state the
conclusion

b. Sub-point B: The prosecution has met its burden in establishing that the
overriding interest will be prejudiced if the courtroom is not closed during
the trial of the Defendant.
i. In creating the synthesized rule, use the following cases:
ii. Ayala
iii. Eschevaria
iv. Etc.
II. LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (two parts):
a. In the umbrella paragraph of this section, explain how this part is also a
two element principle, but I collapse the requisite mens rea for the
underlying crime, knowingly, into the second element.

Also, ask Warshawsky if we should include the statement about

establishing every element of the crime. Headnote 1 in Lexis case brief of
Bello.

b. The Legal standard established in Bello

i. (1) Same mens rea as the seller, which is knowledge. Bello,
knowing that his Co _D was in fact selling cocaine.
ii. The evidence does the court point to that established the
knowledge element?
1. As evidenced by the response of HOW MANY in his
reponse to how many nicks.

iii. That bellow knew exactly what Castellar was up toas he stood
out there and engaged in the conversation.
iv. In our case, when the UC asked Whos working? Im looking for
quarters, CB, as a crack user himself, this inference is made by
the crack pipe later found in his pocket, CB knew what quarters
in the context of standing outside on the street, getting approached
by by a stranger who essentially was looking drugs.

c. The Defendant deliberately and intentionally conducted himself to clearly

/ sufficiently constitute intentional and directly designed to assist in the
drug transaction.
d. The Principle / Legal Standard established by Bello,
i. In Bello, the New York Court of Appeals established that the
evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the indictment because
the Defendant exhibited calculated or direct behavior that
purposefully affected or further the sale of the controlled
substance. People v. Bello, 92 N.E.2d 1209, 1210 (N.Y. 1998).
The court established that when the Defendants responsed, how
many? when approached by the undercover officer who asked for
nicks, which is street slang for $5 bags of crack cocaine, the
Defendant knowingly acknowledged and conveyed to the officer
that he could help get him nicks. (does this have to be in quotes
all the time?) Asking how many? conveyed to the officer the he
had some, or least a source, perhaps depending on the amount, and
thus internationally opened the doors to the illegal drug
transaction.
 III. The court established that the Defendant further exhibited calculated behavior
to further the goal of the enterprised when he asked the undercover officer,
are you a cop? According to the court, this conduct was designed to
screen whether the officer was someone they wanted to do business with,
and thus the Defendants negotiation of the terms of the transaction was
directed towards achieving the ultimate goal of the enterprise --- which was to
complete the illegal drug transaction.
In People v. Wylie, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York established that
the Defendants affirmative / positive response to the undercover officers question about who is
working and the Defendants head nod and pointing imported goal-directed conduct that
furthered the transpiring drug transaction. Upon performing his cue from the Defendant, the Co-
Defendant went to a tree to retrieve two vials of cocaine. Here, Defendants conduct
unquestionably demonstrated an intent to sells drugs to an undercover office. Thus, the
Appellate court upheld the Defedants conviction because his conduct was legally sufficient to
satisfy the accomplice liability.

In People v. Tention, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York established that
even though the Defendant didnt necessarily speak any words, his conduct was enough to
uphold the conviction. When the undercover approached the Defendant and asked for a specific
name brand of a drug, the Defendant knowing that his co-defendant was a seller of such
substances, went directly to his partner, thus aiding in the actual transaction. The court found
that although muted, the Defendants actions could be inferred that he acted as the middleman as
he awaited completion of the transaction and this conduct [bespoke] involvement beyond being
a mere extension of the buyer.

In this case, Defendant Chancelor Bennetts conduct of locking eyes with the undercover officer
while just as the court in Bello interpreted the defendant in Bello furthered the ultimate goal of
the enterprise between him and his co-defendant to sell illegal drugs- by negotiating the terms
of deal by asking how many, Chancelor Bennet similar conducted himself in a calculated
manner by asking