Legal Opinion

People v. Griffith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 26, 2011PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The defendant contends that his statements to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed on the ground that they were obtained in violation of his indelible right to counsel. We disagree.

The indelible right to counsel, prohibiting interrogation unless the right is waived in the presence of counsel, attaches, inter alia, when a criminal action is formally commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument (see People v Grice, 100 NY2d 318, 320-321 [2003]; People v Ramos, 99 NY2d 27, 32-33 [2002]). Here, however, no indictment had been filed in this matter at the time of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. RamosNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. People v. GriceNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. People v. DicksonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
  4. United States v. GiacaloneDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
  5. People v. TimmonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. C.R. & D.W.New York Supreme Court · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API