You are here: / / FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATIO...
,

FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied suppression of the February 5th statement, as well as the first portion of the July 11th videotaped statement by the defendant, despite the suppression of statements made five or six hours earlier on July 11. The videotaped statement was deemed sufficiently attenuated from the inadmissible statements:

Defendant’s videotaped statement was made approximately five hours after the initial Miranda violation. Much shorter breaks have been found sufficient to dissipate the taint of a Miranda violation … . In addition, “defendant had demonstrated an unqualified desire to speak” … , seemed alert and relaxed in the video, and did not appear nervous or intimidated. Indeed, he was even “laughing on occasion.”

Defendant had been Mirandized after his first encounter with the police concerning the case, on February 5. Further, the ADA — who had not participated in the earlier interrogation — was the sole questioner in the admitted portion of the video. Although two of the detectives who had conducted the earlier interrogation were present, they did not participate in the questioning in the admitted segment. Notably, the court suppressed any references to the suppressed statements made earlier on July 11th, as well as the later portion of the video in which the detectives participated in questioning … . People v Richardson, 2017 NY Slip Op 01304, 1st Dept 2-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/MIRANDA VIOLATION (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION)

You might also like
THE CITY AND DEFENDANT CORRECTION OFFICER ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ITS EMPLOYEES’ VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983, THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECTION OFFICER FOR “JANE DOE” AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A BICYCLIST, WAS STRUCK BY A TRUCK WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR (FIRST DEPT). ​
Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door Neighbor and Chimney Repair Company— Smoke Was Entering Plaintiff’s Home
FACT THAT OBJECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANT OF LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW.
ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MENTAL HEALTH, HIV, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE MEDICAL RECORDS NOT DISCOVERABLE... MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT...