Legal Opinion
In re James
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 17, 1967PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSamuel A. Spiegel, J.
The constitutionality of section 206 of the new Mental Hygiene Law, enapted in 1966, for the custody, *515control, treatment and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts is challenged in this proceeding.
The voluntary commitment aspects of the law are not in issue. The involuntary, or compulsory, commitment is the controversial problem before this court.
The questions to be determined by this court are:
1) Was Paul James deprived of the assistance of counsel for his defense, in violation of the Sixth Amendment?
2) Was Paul James compelled to be a witness against himself, in violation of the Fifth Amendment?
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re the Narcotic Addiction Control CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- People ex rel. Byrnes v. GoldmanNew York Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. SimmonsNew York Supreme Court · 1972