Legal Opinion

People v. Breslin

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 1954PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

In view of the constitutional provision that no person “ shall * * * be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ” (N. Y. Const., art. I, § 6), defendant Breslin was free to refuse to answer questions put to him when he appeared before the grand jury, on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him, unless, in return for the *297required testimony, he was granted an “ immunity * * * so broad that the risk of prosecution [was] ended altogether (Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244, 250-251.) Such was the situation here; the provisions of the applicable statutes, prior…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Matter of RoussNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. Matter of DoyleNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  3. People ex rel. Coyle v. TruesdellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  4. People v. . CahillNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  5. People v. ReissAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. ChestnutNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
  2. United States Ex Rel. Laino v. Warden of Wallkill PrisonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
  3. Gold v. MennaNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  4. People v. De FeoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  5. People v. MulliganNew York Court of Appeals · 1971

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API