32 Cited authorities

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,244 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
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
Missouri v. Seibert
542 U.S. 600 (2004) Cited 1,990 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"
Illinois v. Perkins
496 U.S. 292 (1990) Cited 972 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an undercover officer need not give a Miranda warning to an incarcerated suspect because there is no custodial interrogation from an undercover officer
People v. Crimmins
36 N.Y.2d 230 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 5,684 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"
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.
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.
People v. Chapple
38 N.Y.2d 112 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 286 times 1 Legal Analyses
In People v Chapple (38 NY2d 112) we held that the late interposition of those warnings would be "too late" unless there was a demonstration of a "pronounced break" in interrogation adequate to justify a finding that the defendant was no longer under the sway of the prior questioning when the warnings were given (id. at 115).
People v. Baumann Sons
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2234 (N.Y. 2006) Cited 95 times
42. Argued February 15, 2006. Decided March 23, 2006. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered April 6, 2005. The Appellate Term (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County (James P. Flanagan, J.), which had convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of violating Islip Town Code § 35-3 (D), (2) dismissed the information and (3) remitted
People v. Bethea
67 N.Y.2d 364 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 153 times
Rejecting Elstad under state constitution

The People, Appellant,v.Sparkle Daniel, Respondent.

32 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 a police officer's subjective intent to obtain incriminatory statements is not relevant to determining whether an interrogation has occurred

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"

Holding that an undercover officer need not give a Miranda warning to an incarcerated suspect because there is no custodial interrogation from an undercover officer

Holding that an error is prejudicial "if an appellate court concludes that there is a significant probability, rather than only a rational possibility, in the particular case that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error or errors which occurred"

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.

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.

Rejecting Elstad under state constitution