Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1974–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Shawgreen2 sentences2014In general, “an uncounseled waiver of the statutory right to refuse the test . . . provides no basis for suppressing the results” (People v Shaw, 72 NY2d 1032, 1034 [1988]). 2013The Court distinguished Gursey , holding that “when, as here, an attorney’s assistance has not been requested, the fact that the defendant has made an uncounseled waiver of the statutory right to refuse the test . . . provides no basis for suppressing the results” (People v Shaw, 72 NY2d at 1034 ). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Garofologreen2 sentences2013Our dissenting colleague also notes that if this were a matter involving a defendant’s uncounseled waiver of her privilege against self-incrimination, the evidence obtained from a defendant pursuant to a knowing waiver of that constitutional right, prior to counsel’s entry in the matter, would not be subject to suppression (see People v Garofolo, 46 NY2d at 601-602). 2013Our dissenting colleague also notes that if this were a matter involving a defendant’s uncounseled waiver of her privilege against self-incrimination, the evidence obtained from a defendant pursuant to a knowing waiver of that constitutional right, prior to counsel’s entry in the matter, would not be subject to suppression (see People v Garofolo, 46 NY2d at 601-602). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2013It further challenges the holding that the limited right to counsel must be invoked “before responding to a request to take a chemical test” (People v Smith, 18 NY3d at 549 [emphasis added]; see People v Shaw, 72 NY2d at 1034 [“before deciding”]). 2013More recently, in People v Smith, the Court of Appeals characterized the holding in Gursey as providing “a limited right to counsel” which arises “if a defendant arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol asks to contact an attorney before responding to a request to take a chemical test” (People v Smith, 18 NY3d at 549 [emphasis added]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hobsongreen2 sentences2011As we reiterated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479, 481 [1976]) and has since been the governing rule of law, “[o]nce a lawyer has entered a criminal proceeding representing a defendant in connection with criminal charges under investigation, the defendant in custody may not waive his right to counsel in the absence of the lawyer.” If Scott entered his client’s homicide case, the uncounseled waiver subsequently obtained from his client in that case was invalid and the confession consequently elicited must be suppressed. 2011As we reiterated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479, 481 [1976]) and has since been the governing rule of law, "[o]nce a lawyer has entered a criminal proceeding representing a defendant in connection with criminal charges under investigation, the defendant in custody may not waive his right to counsel in the absence of the lawyer." If Scott entered his client's homicide case, the uncounseled waiver subsequently obtained from his client in that case was invalid and the confession consequently elicited must be suppressed. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Naradzaygreen1 sentence2013On this record, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant’s conversation with his friend constituted “interrogation” (see generally People v Naradzay, 11 NY3d 460, 468 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lopezgreen1 sentence2013New York’s indelible right to counsel is likewise designed to prevent the police from attempting to elicit an uncounseled waiver of the right to remain silent (see generally People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 381-382 [2011]). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Matthew Lagronegreen1 sentence2000(McNeil v Wisconsin, 501 US, at 182, n 3 .) A similar phenomenon occurred in United States v LaGrone ( 43 F3d 332, 337 [7th Cir 1994]), but in the context of that Federal prosecution, to which McNeil applies, it did not make a difference in the outcome. | 1 | 1 |
McNeil v. Wisconsingreen1 sentence2000(McNeil v Wisconsin, 501 US, at 182, n 3 .) A similar phenomenon occurred in United States v LaGrone ( 43 F3d 332, 337 [7th Cir 1994]), but in the context of that Federal prosecution, to which McNeil applies, it did not make a difference in the outcome. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crimminsgreen1 sentence1980As is conceded, the taking of the second statement violated the rule established in People v Cunningham ( 49 NY2d 203, 205 ) "that an uncounseled waiver of a constitutional right will not be deemed voluntary if it is made after the right to counsel has been invoked.” An error of constitutional proportion cannot be deemed harmless if a reasonable possibility exists that its commission might have contributed to the conviction (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 240, 241 ) or, as in this case, to the plea (People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610, 618-619 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Morrissey v. Brewergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences1988In People v Cunningham (supra, at 205 ), the Court of Appeals expressly held that "once a suspect in custody requests the assistance of counsel, he may not be questioned further in the absence of an attorney”, intending "to make it clear that an uncounseled waiver of a constitutional right will not be deemed voluntary if it is made after the right to counsel has been invoked”. 1987The principle is now well established that "an uncounseled waiver of a constitutional right will not be deemed voluntary if it is made after the right to counsel has been invoked” (People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203, 205 ). | 6 | 1980–1988 |
People v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2011That, of course, would not be consistent with our decision in People v Ramos ( 40 NY2d 610 [1976]), which, on facts remarkably like those at bar, clearly recognizes that a defendant’s attorney is, through “affirmative and direct action relative to [an] interrogation . . . about to be commenced” (id. at 617), capable of precluding an uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel in an unrelated matter, even one in which the attorney does not ultimately represent the defendant. 1 Rather, it appears to be the majority’s position that what Scott said was not adequate to communicate to the detectives 2011That, of course, would not be consistent with our decision in People v Ramos ( 40 NY2d 610 [1976]), which, on facts remarkably like those at bar, clearly recognizes that a defendant's attorney is, through "affirmative and direct action relative to [an] interrogation. . . about to be commenced" ( id. at 617 ), capable of precluding an uncounseled waiver of the right to counsel in an unrelated matter, even one in which the attorney does not ultimately represent the defendant. [1] Rather, it appears to be the majority's position that what Scott said was not adequate to communicate to the detectiv | 2 | 1980–2011 |
People v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2011It is questionable whether this artifice should be deemed effective to avoid attachment of the indelible right under People v Rogers ( 48 NY2d 167 [1979]) where, as here, the detectives were obviously aware of the extant representational relationship, having been present at its inception, and fully intended in the hours after defendant’s “release” to subject him to custodial questioning. 2011It is questionable whether this artifice should be deemed effective to avoid attachment of the indelible right under People v Rogers ( 48 NY2d 167 [1979]) where, as here, the detectives were obviously aware of the extant representational relationship, having been present at its inception, and fully intended in the hours after defendant's "release" to subject him to custodial questioning. | 2 | 1985–2011 |
People v. Burdo
green
2 sentences2004Thus, when detectives began to question the defendant on November 14, 2000, about the murder, the burglary charges had been disposed of by conviction, and the defendant was capable of making an uncounseled waiver of his right to counsel (see People v Burdo, 91 NY2d 146 [1997]). 2000(People v Burdo, 91 NY2d, at 152 .) Stated another way, given the scope of defendant’s State constitutional right to counsel, his assertion of it occurred “when the government s [ought] to take the action [it] protect [ed] against,” namely an uncounseled waiver of rights. | 2 | 2000–2004 |
People v. Settles
green
2 sentences1984Further, a defendant may not make an uncounseled waiver of Miranda rights; (1) after a request for an attorney (People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ; People v Dean, 47 NY2d 967 ), (2) the commencement of formal adversarial proceedings (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 ; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ) or (3) when there is a second arrest in a related proceeding (People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Townes, 41 NY2d 97 ). 1981Second, the nonwaiver of counsel rule acknowledges that “[o]nce a matter is the subject of a legal controversy [including a civil controversy] and discussions relating thereto should be conducted by counsel: at that point the parties are in no position to safeguard their rights” (People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 164 ; see, also, People v Skinner, supra, at p 29 , holding that an attorney in a civil case has an ethical responsibility not to discuss the case with an individual known to be represented by another attorney on the matter). | 2 | 1981–1984 |
People v. Gursey
green
1 sentence2014In People v Gursey ( 22 NY2d 224 [1968]), however, we recognized a limited right of the accused to seek legal assistance in alcohol-related driving cases. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Vails
green
1 sentence2004The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), or without merit (see People v Vails, 43 NY2d 364 [1977]). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Di Biasi
green
1 sentence1995As the Court of Appeals stated in People v Townes ( 41 NY2d 97 , 102103), "It has long been the law in this State that any incriminating statement made in the absence of counsel by a defendant in response to interrogation relating to the criminal charge under investigation after he has been arraigned or indicted is inadmissible in evidence against the defendant (People v Waterman, 9 NY2d 561, 565 ; People v Di Biasi, 7 NY2d 544, 550-551 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Waterman
green
1 sentence1995As the Court of Appeals stated in People v Townes ( 41 NY2d 97 , 102103), "It has long been the law in this State that any incriminating statement made in the absence of counsel by a defendant in response to interrogation relating to the criminal charge under investigation after he has been arraigned or indicted is inadmissible in evidence against the defendant (People v Waterman, 9 NY2d 561, 565 ; People v Di Biasi, 7 NY2d 544, 550-551 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Rowell
green
1 sentence1989When a suspect is being questioned by police and, as here, unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel on the matter under investigation (cf., People v Bell, 73 NY2d 153 ), all questioning must cease and a subsequent uncounseled waiver of his constitutional rights is invalid (see, People v Rowell, 59 NY2d 727, 730 ; People v Feneque, 133 AD2d 646, 647 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Bell
green
1 sentence1989When a suspect is being questioned by police and, as here, unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel on the matter under investigation (cf., People v Bell, 73 NY2d 153 ), all questioning must cease and a subsequent uncounseled waiver of his constitutional rights is invalid (see, People v Rowell, 59 NY2d 727, 730 ; People v Feneque, 133 AD2d 646, 647 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Feneque
neutral
1 sentence1989When a suspect is being questioned by police and, as here, unequivocally requests the assistance of counsel on the matter under investigation (cf., People v Bell, 73 NY2d 153 ), all questioning must cease and a subsequent uncounseled waiver of his constitutional rights is invalid (see, People v Rowell, 59 NY2d 727, 730 ; People v Feneque, 133 AD2d 646, 647 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Flecha
green
1 sentence1988The introduction of the statements at trial in the case at bar cannot be regarded as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (cf., People v Flecha, 60 NY2d 766 ). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
New York v. Tompkins
green
1 sentence1985Under these circumstances, an uncounseled waiver will be ineffective (People v Tompkins, 45 NY2d 748 , cert denied 440 US 939 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Tompkins
green
1 sentence1985Under these circumstances, an uncounseled waiver will be ineffective (People v Tompkins, 45 NY2d 748 , cert denied 440 US 939 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Ermo
green
1 sentence1984Further, a defendant may not make an uncounseled waiver of Miranda rights; (1) after a request for an attorney (People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ; People v Dean, 47 NY2d 967 ), (2) the commencement of formal adversarial proceedings (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 ; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ) or (3) when there is a second arrest in a related proceeding (People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Townes, 41 NY2d 97 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Dean
green
1 sentence1984Further, a defendant may not make an uncounseled waiver of Miranda rights; (1) after a request for an attorney (People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ; People v Dean, 47 NY2d 967 ), (2) the commencement of formal adversarial proceedings (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 ; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ) or (3) when there is a second arrest in a related proceeding (People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Townes, 41 NY2d 97 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Samuels
green
1 sentence1984Further, a defendant may not make an uncounseled waiver of Miranda rights; (1) after a request for an attorney (People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203 ; People v Dean, 47 NY2d 967 ), (2) the commencement of formal adversarial proceedings (People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 ; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ) or (3) when there is a second arrest in a related proceeding (People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Townes, 41 NY2d 97 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Grant
green
1 sentence1980In People v Grant (supra, p 377 ) the Court of Appeals noted "[i]n no case where the defendant has pleaded guilty have we held that an erroneous denial of a pretrial motion to suppress was harmless” (citing People v Ramos, supra, pp 618-619 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
red
1 sentence1978Of course, a postindictment defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at any stage of the judicial proceedings (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10 ; Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| People v. McIntyre green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Stovall v. Denno
green
1 sentence1978Except perhaps in the most exigent of circumstances not present here, the police are forbidden to seek an uncounseled waiver of an indicted defendant’s right to counsel (cf. Stovall v Denno, 388 US 293, 302 ). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.