on the understanding that Detective Gitts would testify in open court to the redacted portion of the confession. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (RP) (Mar. 6, 1996) at 2214-15, RP (Mar. 7, 1996) at 2392. But had defense counsel been notified that the jury would be allowed to repeatedly play the redacted version of the tape in the jury room, the defense would have had good reason to object to the redaction and/or placing the tape player in the jury room. CP at 103, 105 (affidavits of defense counsel, swearing they were not informed a tape player was placed in the jury room). Therefore denial of the opportunity for counsel to be heard on the issue of the tape player was denial of Elmore’s right to counsel. Cf. Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 95 S. Ct. 2550, 45 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The potentially undue emphasis a jury might
holding that a new york statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel holding that patients constitutional due process rights were violated when his trial counsel was not allowed to present a closing argument prior to involuntary commitment holding that statute which permitted judge to deny defense closing in bench trial violated right to counsel and emphasizing the importance of argument by counsel in the factfinding process holding statute permitting judge to deny counsel opportunity for closing argument violated criminal defendants constitutional rightto counsel holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings