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.
8 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2021 2 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2016“A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240, 242 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 956 [1995]). 2014“A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240, 242 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 956 [1995]). | 3 | 4 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021"Where a person of subnormal intelligence is involved, close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver" ( People v Cleverin , 140 AD3d at 1081 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Williams , 62 NY2d 285, 289 ). 2016In dealing with a person with intellectual disabilities, "close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver" of his or her Miranda rights (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289 [1984]; see People v Comfort, 6 AD3d 871, 873 [2004]). | 2 | 6 |
People v. Comfortgreen2 sentences2021"In dealing with a person with intellectual disabilities, close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver of his or her Miranda rights" ( People v Stocum , 143 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Comfort , 6 AD3d 871, 873 [2004]). 2016In dealing with a person with intellectual disabilities, "close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver" of his or her Miranda rights (People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289 [1984]; see People v Comfort, 6 AD3d 871, 873 [2004]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Stocumgreen1 sentence2021"In dealing with a person with intellectual disabilities, close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver of his or her Miranda rights" ( People v Stocum , 143 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Comfort , 6 AD3d 871, 873 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2021"Where a person of subnormal intelligence is involved, close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver" ( People v Cleverin , 140 AD3d at 1081 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Williams , 62 NY2d 285, 289 ). 2021Under such circumstances, it must be established that the person with subnormal intelligence understood the immediate meaning of the warnings, that is, that he or she grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to his or her disadvantage; and that an attorney's assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued ( see People v Williams , 62 NY2d at 289 ; People v Cleverin , 140 AD3d at 1082 ). "[O]ver and beyond the ordinary constitutional safeguards provided for adults subjected to questioning, [law | 1 | 1 |
In re Jimmy D.green1 sentence2021Under such circumstances, it must be established that the person with subnormal intelligence understood the immediate meaning of the warnings, that is, that he or she grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to his or her disadvantage; and that an attorney's assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued ( see People v Williams , 62 NY2d at 289 ; People v Cleverin , 140 AD3d at 1082 ). "[O]ver and beyond the ordinary constitutional safeguards provided for adults subjected to questioning, [law | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2016Inasmuch as defendant’s claimed impairments did not render him “completely incapable of understanding the meaning and effect of his confession” (People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 289 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), the circumstances most worthy of scrutiny involve whether defendant had the “ability ‘to grasp the basic concepts that he could refuse to talk to the investigator or that he could ask to speak to a lawyer’ and that any statement might be used to his disadvantage” (People v Marx, 305 AD2d 726, 728 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 596 [2003], quoting People v Ferguson, 285 AD 2016Inasmuch as defendant's claimed impairments did not render him "completely incapable of understanding the meaning and effect of his confession" (People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 289 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), the circumstances most worthy of scrutiny involve whether defendant had the "ability 'to grasp the basic concepts that he could refuse to talk to the investigator or that he could ask to speak to a lawyer' and that any statement might be used to his disadvantage" (People v Marx, 305 AD2d 726, 728 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 596 [2003], quoting People v Ferguson, 285 AD | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marxgreen2 sentences2016Inasmuch as defendant’s claimed impairments did not render him “completely incapable of understanding the meaning and effect of his confession” (People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 289 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), the circumstances most worthy of scrutiny involve whether defendant had the “ability ‘to grasp the basic concepts that he could refuse to talk to the investigator or that he could ask to speak to a lawyer’ and that any statement might be used to his disadvantage” (People v Marx, 305 AD2d 726, 728 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 596 [2003], quoting People v Ferguson, 285 AD 2016Inasmuch as defendant's claimed impairments did not render him "completely incapable of understanding the meaning and effect of his confession" (People v Williams, 62 NY2d at 289 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), the circumstances most worthy of scrutiny involve whether defendant had the "ability 'to grasp the basic concepts that he could refuse to talk to the investigator or that he could ask to speak to a lawyer' and that any statement might be used to his disadvantage" (People v Marx, 305 AD2d 726, 728 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 596 [2003], quoting People v Ferguson, 285 AD | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bleakleygreen1 sentence1999The standard for review of defendant’s second contention, i.e., that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, is as follows: “If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable, then the appellate court must, like the trier of fact below, ‘weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony’ * * * If it appears that the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict | 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. Dunn
neutral
2 sentences2016“A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240, 242 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 956 [1995]). 2014“A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240, 242 [1994], affd 85 NY2d 956 [1995]). | 3 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Hall
green
1 sentence2021Under such circumstances, it must be established that the person with subnormal intelligence understood the immediate meaning of the warnings, that is, that he or she grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator; that any statement might be used to his or her disadvantage; and that an attorney's assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued ( see People v Williams , 62 NY2d at 289 ; People v Cleverin , 140 AD3d at 1082 ). "[O]ver and beyond the ordinary constitutional safeguards provided for adults subjected to questioning, [law | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Riklis
neutral
1 sentence2014“A defendant’s mental deficiency weighs against the admissibility of an elicited confession, so that any such confession must be measured by the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon them” (People v Dunn, 195 AD2d 240, 242 , affd 18 NY2d 956 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Gibson
green
1 sentence1999Under these circumstances, the admonition that “[i]n dealing with a person of subnormal intelligence, close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver” (People v Williams, supra, at 289) was adhered to by County Court, rendering its denial of defendant’s suppression motion entirely proper (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 ; People v Gibson, 241 AD2d 772, 774 , lv denied 91 NY2d 873 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Waite
green
1 sentence1999The standard for review of defendant’s second contention, i.e., that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, is as follows: “If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable, then the appellate court must, like the trier of fact below, ‘weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony’ * * * If it appears that the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1999Under these circumstances, the admonition that “[i]n dealing with a person of subnormal intelligence, close scrutiny must be made of the circumstances of the asserted waiver” (People v Williams, supra, at 289) was adhered to by County Court, rendering its denial of defendant’s suppression motion entirely proper (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 ; People v Gibson, 241 AD2d 772, 774 , lv denied 91 NY2d 873 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.