You are here: / / PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH...
,

PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reaffirmed its precedent allowing voluntary statements made after Miranda rights have been invoked to be used to impeach should the defendant take the stand:

This Court has long held that if a statement made by the defendant to the police is voluntary, it may be used for impeachment purposes; but if a statement is involuntary, it will not be admissible, even if it may be deemed reliable … . * * *

Here, County Court determined that the statements were voluntary and the Appellate Division affirmed that determination. …  …[T]here is nothing in the record to support defendant’s contention that [the interrogating officer] consciously circumvented defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights or otherwise rendered defendant’s statements involuntary as a matter of law. Thus, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to preclude the People from utilizing the statements on cross-examination or rebuttal. People v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06942, CtApp 10-25-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/EVIDENCE PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, PRECEDENT ALLOWING VOLUNTARY POST-MIRANDA STATEMENTS TO BE USED TO IMPEACH REAFFIRMED

You might also like
ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP).
Consecutive Nature of Sentence is Collateral Consequence of Conviction
Local Law, Which Regulates the Conduct of Attorneys Who Regularly Engage in (Nonlegal) Activities Traditionally Performed by Debt Collectors, Not Preempted by the Judiciary Law
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF ANNOTATED TRIAL EXHIBITS DURING PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION WAS PROPER BECAUSE THE ANNOTATIONS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE TRIAL EVIDENCE.
Plaintiff’s Proof of Reason for Termination of Treatment Was Sufficient to Get By Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion
No Probable Cause for Disorderly Conduct Arrest/Defendant Was Standing in Front of a Store with Three Others All of Whom Refused Police Officer’s Request to Move
“MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” IS A BAILABLE FELONY (CT APP).
THE SEX TRAFFICKING STATUTE HAS TWO LINKED BUT DISTINCT ELEMENTS WHICH WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED TO THE JURY IN THE INITIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS; HOWEVER THE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE ERRONEOUSLY COLLAPSED THE STATUTE TO A SINGLE ELEMENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE SEX TRAFFICKING COUNTS (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RESIDENTIAL AREA OF MIXED USE BUILDING COULD NOT BE ACCESSED FROM WHERE DEFENDANT... STATEMENTS ALLEGING MAFIA INVOLVEMENT IN A STRIP CLUB WERE NOT “OF AND...