§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

8 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,189 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 6,121 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. People v. Paulman

    5 N.Y.3d 122 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 288 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.

  4. 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.

  5. People v. White

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2500 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 74 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."

  6. People v. Malaussena

    10 N.Y.3d 904 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 9 times

    Decided June 12, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 4, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree. People v Malaussena, 44 AD3d 349, affirmed. Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City ( Joseph M

  7. People v. Panton

    114 A.D.3d 450 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    2014-02-6 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nadine PANTON, Defendant–Appellant. Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robin Nichinsky of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of counsel), for respondent. SWEENY Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Robin Nichinsky of counsel), for appellant.Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of counsel), for respondent. , J.P., ANDRIAS

  8. People v. Daniel

    122 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    2014-11-6 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sparkle DANIEL, Defendant–Appellant. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant.Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of counsel), for respondent. TOM Reversed and remanded. Clark, J., filed dissenting opinion. Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant. Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won of