People v. Bing
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Brown, J. P.
On this appeal we conclude that the rule established in People v Rogers (48 NY2d 167), People v Bartolomeo (53 NY2d 225) and their progeny does not extend to a situation in which police officers to whom a defendant makes an uncounselled incriminatory statement are or should be aware that he is represented by counsel on pending unrelated criminal charges when those charges are pending, not in New York, but in a foreign jurisdiction.
I
On May 17, 1985, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the rectory housekeeper at St. Joachim’s Church in Cedarhurst was robbed and money was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. RogersNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- People v. BartolomeoNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. ArthurNew York Court of Appeals · 1968
- People v. FelderNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- People v. LucaranoNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. FrejomilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- People v. HusbandsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- People v. DrossNew York Supreme Court · 1989
- People v. FiberAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- People v. CoteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.