People v. Frankos
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Defendant Kersch argues that certain pretrial statements he made should have been suppressed because they were taken in violation of his right to counsel. Kersch was arrested on a warrant issued as a result of his violation of the terms of his parole. He claims that this arrest was a “sham” in that the police were using the warrant as a means to question him about a murder without his right to counsel attaching. He states that the parole warrant should be deemed an arrest warrant for murder. His right to counsel would automatically attach since there would be significant judicial activity…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- People v. SamuelsNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. NuccieNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- People v. CunninghamNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. DylaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- People v. AnthonyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- People v. PadronAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- People v. JeffersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
- People v. PelkeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.