Legal Opinion
People v. Murray
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 16, 1987PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*320OPINION OF THE COURT
Rosenberger, J.
The facts are reasonably set forth in the dissent by Justice Smith.
There was no deprivation of the defendant’s right to counsel by the actions of the police or the District Attorney. It is clear that when a defendant is represented by counsel in a pending case any statement taken from him by law enforcement authorities, in the absence of his attorney, may not be used against him, even in a totally unrelated case in which he is unrepresented by counsel. (People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225 [1981]; People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167 [1979].) Since those cases, the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- People v. BartolomeoNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Hassan v. Magistrates' CourtNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- People ex rel. Doe v. BeaudoinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Hassan v. Magistrates CourtNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. HarrisCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1990
- People v. DoeNew York Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 2002
- In re the Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on the Museum of Modern ArtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- People v. MinorCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1987