You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the People did not demonstrate defendant understood he had a right to an attorney at the time he made statement, even if he could not afford one. Both of his statements should have been suppressed:

​

… [T]he People failed to establish that defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights before giving oral and written statements to a detective at the precinct. In a videotaped statement to the prosecutor, made several hours after the statements to the detective, defendant said, “I cannot pay for a lawyer, why do I write yes or no.” The prosecutor then said, “[D]o you understand if you can’t, the Court will give you one?,” to which defendant responded, “[S]o I put no.” After the prosecutor reread the warnings defendant stated, “[Y]es, I need to have a lawyer . . . I cannot pay a lawyer.” The prosecutor next asked, “[B]ut do you understand that one will be provided if you cannot pay,” and defendant again stated “yes, but I can’t pay for a lawyer.” Finally, the prosecutor told defendant, “[O]kay, so you can write yes’ if you understand, and no’ if you don’t understand,” and defendant said, “[Y]es, I do understand.” Based on this exchange, the court correctly suppressed defendant’s videotaped statement. Given defendant’s failure to comprehend that he had the right to an attorney at the time of his statements if he could not afford one, it is evident that defendant’s previous statement to the detective should also be suppressed … .

We find that the error was not harmless, because there is a reasonable possibility that it contributed to defendant’s guilty plea … . People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 06629, First Dept 9-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (STATEMENTS, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))/MIRANDA WARNINGS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE EVEN IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD ONE, BOTH STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT))

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
INSURER’S DUTY TO DEFEND MUST BE DETERMINED SOLELY UPON THE INFORMATION WITHIN THE COMPLAINT, MATTERS OUTSIDE THE COMPLAINT MUST BE RAISED IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OR AT TRIAL.
THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.
ALTHOUGH THE TWO INDICTMENTS ALLEGED THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI FOR MEDICAID FRAUD, THE CHARGES INVOLVED DIFFERENT PARTIES AND TIME PERIODS; THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION SEEKING TO PRECLUDE PROSECUTION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, A MEMBER OF THE PROUD BOYS, WAS CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT OF A MEMBER OF ANTIFA; A BOOT IS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE ANIMOSITY BETWEEN THE PROUD BOYS AND ANTIFA PROPERLY ALLOWED (FIRST DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAIL SELLER OF A SULFURIC ACID DRAIN OPENER, AND THE NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF HER DENIAL... EMAILS DID NOT EXPLICITLY WAIVE THE INITIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTIES WOULD...