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
THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR FILING A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205 (A)) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION HAS NOT RUN; PLAINTIFF WAS FREE TO COMMENCE ANOTHER ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL ANYTIME WITHIN THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).
To Demonstrate “Defamation by Implication” Where the Factual Statements Are Substantially True, It Must Be Shown the Communication as a Whole Imparts a Defamatory Inference and the Author Intended or Endorsed the Defamatory Inference
THE NYC COMPTROLLER’S SUBPOENAS FOR COVID-19-PLANNING-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO AND THE FIRST DEPUTY MAYOR WERE PROPERLY QUASHED BY SUPREME COURT (FIRST DEPT).
INTRA- OR INTER- AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY), PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD OF $63,000 UNDER THE LEMON LAW BASED UPON NOISES FROM THE VEHICLE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THAT PLAINTIFF-TENANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DEREGULATE APARTMENTS WHILE RECEIVING J51 TAX BENEFITS; THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED (CT APP).
“Mere Nervousness” Does Not Justify Police Inquiry/ More than “Mere Nervousness” in this Case

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

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