Legal Opinion
People v. Stanton
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 22, 1990PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the hearing court erred in determining that a statement given by him to the police was voluntarily made. We disagree. The record supports the court’s findings that defendant was given Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436) and voluntarily chose to waive them even after he had incriminated himself. Furthermore, the fact that seven hours elapsed between the time defendant was last given his Miranda warnings and the time he gave his confession to the police does not render the interrogation inherently coercive. "It…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. GlinsmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- People v. ClevelandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. BakerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- People v. HawkesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- People v. HollandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- People v. TobiasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- People v. FontanezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.