You are here: / / DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN...
,

DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined both statements by the defendant, the first in the morning to detectives, the second in the afternoon to the district attorney, should have been suppressed. The first statement was suppressed by Supreme Court because the police told the defendant that any statement he made would not necessary be used against him and could help him if confessed. The second statement, although also preceded by the Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed because nothing was done to correct the misinformation from the police which preceded the first statement:

… Statement #2, along with the knife and DNA evidence recovered from the knife, should have been suppressed as there was not a sufficient break in the interrogation to dissipate the taint from the initial Miranda violation. This is not a case where defendant initially received improper warnings prior to giving Statement #1 and then later received proper warnings prior to giving Statement #2. Instead, defendant received complete and proper Miranda warnings prior to giving Statement #1, but they were undermined by the additional commentary and misleading statements made by the police officers … thereby violating defendant’s Miranda rights and requiring the suppression of Statement #1. Moreover, after the officers made the misleading statements, nothing was specifically done to correct any resulting misunderstanding to ensure that the defendant understood the import and effect of the Miranda warnings and that his statements could, and would, be used against him. This misunderstanding cannot be assumed to have simply dissipated after the Assistant District Attorney gave defendant the second Miranda warnings, even though the second warnings took place hours later and in a different room. As the second Miranda warnings did not dissipate the taint, they did not effectively protect defendant’s rights. Although it “is not the business of the police or the courts” to “provid[e] a general legal education” … , those institutions also cannot be allowed to proliferate misleading information in situations where a suspect is entitled to be advised of his rights. People v Savage, 2023 NY Slip Op 05452, First Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Although both the initial tainted statement to the police and the subsequent statement to the DA were preceded by Miranda warnings, because nothing was done to correct the misinformation provided by the police prior to the first statement, the second statement, made the same day, and the knife and DNA located based on the second statement, should have been suppressed.

 

You might also like
DESPITE THE BRAKE-FAILURE ALLEGATION IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT BRAKE FAILURE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, VERIZON, THREATENED LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF IF PLAINTIFF RESIGNED TO WORK FOR WARNERMEDIA; PLAINTIFF’S TORTIOUS-INTERFERENCE-WITH-PROSPECTIVE-BUSINESS-RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Late Amendment of Complaint (After Note of Issue Filed) Should Have Been Granted
DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN APPROACHED BY POLICE IN PLAINCLOTHES AND DRIVING AN UNMARKED CAR DID NOT JUSTIFY PURSUIT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WEAPON DISCARDED BY THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
​ THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) AND THE ATTORNEY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE IP WERE PROPERLY REMOVED AND DISCHARGED WITHOUT A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE GUARDIAN AND THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE BONA FIDES OF THE IP’S MARRIAGE AND THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
UNSUPPORTED CEILING COLLAPSED DURING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Further Proceedings Are Stayed When Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Is Granted
Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)

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

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WHICH HAD RELINQUISHED... ​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL...