24 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,305 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
United States v. Leon
468 U.S. 897 (1984) Cited 10,258 times 72 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable
People v. Hobson
39 N.Y.2d 479 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 458 times
Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation
People v. Wise
46 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 267 times 1 Legal Analyses
In People v. Wise (46 N.Y.2d 321), the Court of Appeals relied on traditional formulations of using prior inconsistent statements as a principal means of testing a witness' credibility in holding that a defendant could be impeached by the use of suppressed oral statements.
Niesig v. Team I
76 N.Y.2d 363 (N.Y. 1990) Cited 180 times
Finding a prohibition againstex parte employee interviews unnecessary to protect the corporation's interests, including its interest in protecting privileged communications
U.S. v. Hammad
858 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 156 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a covert informant's use of "a sham subpoena supplied by the prosecutor" can violate a defendant's due process rights
People v. Jones
2 N.Y.3d 235 (N.Y. 2004) Cited 81 times
Holding that the photographic array identification by two robbery victims supported probable cause for an arrest
People v. Moses
63 N.Y.2d 299 (N.Y. 1984) Cited 142 times
Explaining that "a false alibi may be due not to consciousness of guilt of the crime charged but to consciousness of some incriminating evidence and the justifiable desire to remain free"
People v. Skinner
52 N.Y.2d 24 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 140 times
In Skinner, the defendant was initially questioned immediately after a murder, and then repeatedly questioned over the next few months, prompting him to retain an attorney who instructed the police not to question his client.
In re Hallmark
831 A.2d 366 (D.C. 2003) Cited 49 times
Holding that the submission of a deficient voucher undoubtedly "placed an unnecessary burden on the administrative processes of the Superior Court and on the presiding judge" but a Rule 8.4(d) violation generally requires "egregious conduct" or "intentional disregard for the effect that an action may have on judicial proceedings."
Section 90 - Admission to and removal from practice by appellate division; character committees
N.Y. Jud. Law § 90 Cited 5,988 times 1 Legal Analyses
Observing that conviction of a felony results in immediate disbarment of an attorney and that conviction of a “serious crime” results in suspension—with the latter defined either as a crime that is a felony “under the laws of any state, district or territory or of the United States” though not in New York, or which has, as “a necessary element ... interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a serious crime”
Section 60.45 - Rules of evidence; admissibility of statements of defendants
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 60.45 Cited 864 times
1. Evidence of a written or oral confession, admission, or other statement made by a defendant with respect to his participation or lack of participation in the offense charged, may not be received in evidence against him in a criminal proceeding if such statement was involuntarily made. 2. A confession, admission or other statement is "involuntarily made" by a defendant when it is obtained from him: (a) By any person by the use or threatened use of physical force upon the defendant or another person

The People, Appellant,v.Eugene Polhill, Respondent.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that when a warrant is "subsequently invalidated," suppression is not necessary so long as the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate and the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable

Finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104 violation

In People v. Wise (46 N.Y.2d 321), the Court of Appeals relied on traditional formulations of using prior inconsistent statements as a principal means of testing a witness' credibility in holding that a defendant could be impeached by the use of suppressed oral statements.

Finding a prohibition againstex parte employee interviews unnecessary to protect the corporation's interests, including its interest in protecting privileged communications

Holding that a covert informant's use of "a sham subpoena supplied by the prosecutor" can violate a defendant's due process rights

Holding that the photographic array identification by two robbery victims supported probable cause for an arrest

Explaining that "a false alibi may be due not to consciousness of guilt of the crime charged but to consciousness of some incriminating evidence and the justifiable desire to remain free"

In Skinner, the defendant was initially questioned immediately after a murder, and then repeatedly questioned over the next few months, prompting him to retain an attorney who instructed the police not to question his client.