Legal Opinion

People v. Nentarz

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 1931PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.

There is no recognized procedure for the suppression by motion of an alleged confession. The defendant has an opportunity at the trial to object to the admission of any confession and to test its admissibility and this is his only remedy. The objectionable statement may not be offered in evidence and *478the defendant is anticipating its use on the trial in this motion. Even if an alleged confession is used before the grand jury, it will not be suppressed on motion. ( United States v. Lydecker, 275 Fed. 976.)

The inspection of the minutes of a grand jury will not be granted where there is clearly…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. LydeckerDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1921
  2. People v. MitchellNew York Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Application of FriedDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
  2. Miller v. SilverNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. People v. Gerber, New York County Courts1964
  4. Commonwealth v. GazailleLebanon County Court of Oyer and Terminer · 1963
  5. In Re FriedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947

2 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