Legal Opinion

People v. Renaghan

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 14, 1974PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum.

Defendant was charged with a violation of section 215.50 of the Penal Law for his alleged contumacious and unlawful refusal to answer certain questions during a Grand Jury investigation, in which it was claimed that he gave conspicuously evasive and patently false answers relating to whether a Detective Keeley told the defendant that Hugh Mulligan would like to have a Detective Sangiriardi assigned to a special investigative unit. On the record before us, including as it does defendant’s unequivocal denials of the District Attorney’s interrogatories-in this regard at the inception…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In Re MichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. United States v. AppelDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1913

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. SchenkmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. People v. FischerNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. Hynes v. HartmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  4. People v. MartinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  5. People v. ArnetteNew York Court of Appeals · 1983

10 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