§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Nadine Panton, Appellant.

Brief

21 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,240 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

  2. Rhode Island v. Innis

    446 U.S. 291 (1980)   Cited 6,127 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

  3. Missouri v. Seibert

    542 U.S. 600 (2004)   Cited 1,989 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[s]trategists dedicated to draining the substance out of" constitutional protections cannot accomplish by planning around these protections because it "effectively threatens to thwart [their] purpose"

  4. People v. Caban

    5 N.Y.3d 143 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 1,637 times
    Holding conspirators' statements admissible as verbal acts to prove existence of conspiracy but not, absent independent evidence of the conspiracy, for their truth

  5. People v. Paulman

    5 N.Y.3d 122 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 290 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Paulman, 5 N.Y.3d 122 (2005), the Court of Appeals concluded that a defendant's Mirandized statements had been properly admitted despite a prior, unwarned statement.

  6. People v. Brown

    45 N.Y.2d 852 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 477 times
    Holding that because, "[g]enerally, the ineffectiveness of counsel is not demonstrable on the main record,... it would be better, and in some cases essential, that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceedings brought under CPL 440.10"

  7. People v. Rivers

    56 N.Y.2d 476 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 298 times
    In Rivers, at the time the defendant inquired as to the basis of the charge, the officer was simply recording defendant's arrest in the station house log, a routine police activity.

  8. People v. Ferro

    63 N.Y.2d 316 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 266 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Ferro, the New York Court of Appeals found that the defendant's Miranda rights had been violated where police officers displayed furs stolen from a murder victim in front of the defendant after he had refused to make a statement and requested to speak with the District Attorney.

  9. People v. Bethea

    67 N.Y.2d 364 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 153 times
    Rejecting Elstad under state constitution

  10. People v. White

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2500 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 76 times
    In White, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant's conviction [People v White, 40 AD3d 662 (2nd Dept 2007)] and concluded that because defendant made no inculpatory statement, or any statement relating to his conduct in connection with the crime under investigation, until after warnings had been properly given and waived, that there was "no need to determine whether pre-and post- Miranda sessions were part of a single continuous chain of events."