You are here: / / BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW...
, ,

BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW.

The First Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, over a two justice dissent, determined the detective’s mention of a drug offense for which defendant was represented by counsel during questioning on a homicide required suppression of the interrogation:

​

Although the reference to the drug charges on which defendant was represented was brief and flippant, it was not, in context, innocuous or discrete and fairly separable from the homicide investigation. The detective told defendant during the questioning that he knew defendant was involved in selling drugs at the location of the murder and that the killing was over a drug debt. The remarks regarding the pending drug case went to defendant’s alleged participation in the drug trade at the location of the homicide, the very activity out of which a motivation for killing the victim arose. Indeed, it succeeded in eliciting from defendant a response that may fairly be interpreted as incriminating himself in dealing drugs at the location, the alleged motivation and context out of which the homicide occurred. Accordingly, because questioning regarding the drug case on which defendant was represented by counsel was intertwined with questioning regarding the homicide, defendant’s statements should have been suppressed.

However, we find no other basis for suppression. As the dissent notes, the repeated comments made to defendant by the detective and his colleagues to the effect that defendant should “tell [his] side of the story” immediately because if he were to wait until trial, “[no] one is going to believe” him and he would be “charged with murder, not . . . manslaughter” did not vitiate the Miranda warnings defendant had received … . People v Silvagnoli, 2017 NY Slip Op 04392, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE (1) FACEBOOK PHOTOGRAPHS SHE DID NOT INTEND TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL AND (2) INFORMATION ABOUT POST-ACCIDENT MESSAGES.
PARTIES HAD CONSENTED TO PROCEDURES WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE CPLR, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, ALTHOUGH UNTIMELY UNDER THE CPLR, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
AN UNFAVORABLE ANONYMOUS GOOGLE REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF ORTHODONTIST, ALTHOUGH IT INCLUDED BOTH FACT AND OPINION, WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY A READER TO BE PURE OPINION; THE REVIEW IS NOT ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION (FIRST DEPT). ​
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION.
DEFENDANTS IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE MAT AND WARNING SIGN PLACED IN THE AREA WERE INADEQUATE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DISSENT ARGUED THE TESTIMONY RAISED CLASSIC QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE (FIRST DEPT). ​
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER,... THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH...