Donovan-Arthur rule (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

Donovan-Arthur rule in New York

6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1976–1983 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Hobsongreen
ny · 1976 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 1976–1981
2 sentences

1981The first, the Donovan-Arthur rule, holds that once an attorney enters the proceeding, no waiver of rights may be extracted from a defendant without the attorney being present (e.g., People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479 ).

1981The first, the Donovan-Arthur rule, holds that once an attorney enters the proceeding, no waiver of rights may be extracted from a defendant without the attorney being present (e.g., People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479 ).

13
People v. Vellagreen
ny · 1967 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980The Taylor exception rearticulated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 , supra) was later refined and limited in a series of cases (see People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; see, also, People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249; but cf. People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ).

11
People v. Cunninghamgreen
ny · 1980 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980This was followed by a long, and, at times, confusing effort to clarify the scope of the Donovan-Arthur rule with regard to matters unrelated to an action in which a defendant already had legal representation (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167, 171 , supra; People v Cunningham, supra, p 209).

1980This was followed by a long, and, at times, confusing effort to clarify the scope of the Donovan-Arthur rule with regard to matters unrelated to an action in which a defendant already had legal representation (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167, 171 , supra; People v Cunningham, supra, p 209).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
People v. Colemangreen
ny · 1977 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 1979–1980
2 sentences

1980The Taylor exception rearticulated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 , supra) was later refined and limited in a series of cases (see People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; see, also, People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249; but cf. People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ).

1979We have, until today, always held that a defendant may waive counsel without having an attorney present although he is represented by counsel on an entirely unrelated pending charge (see, e.g., People v Stanley, 15 NY2d 30 ; People v Simons, 22 NY2d 533 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ; People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ).

12

Also cited on this issue (16)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Arthur green
ny · 1968
2 sentences

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

41976–1983
People v. Donovan green
ny · 1963
2 sentences

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

21979–1983
People v. Hetherington green
ny · 1970
2 sentences

1980An exception was carved out in People v Taylor ( 27 NY2d 327, 332 ) to the effect that the Donovan-Arthur rule did not obtain unless and until the police or prosecutor learned that an attorney had been secured "to assist the accused in defending against the specific charges for which he is held” (emphasis in original) (see, also, People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ).

1980An exception was carved out in People v Taylor ( 27 NY2d 327, 332 ) to the effect that the Donovan-Arthur rule did not obtain unless and until the police or prosecutor learned that an attorney had been secured "to assist the accused in defending against the specific charges for which he is held” (emphasis in original) (see, also, People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ).

21979–1980
People v. Taylor green
ny · 1971
2 sentences

1980An exception was carved out in People v Taylor ( 27 NY2d 327, 332 ) to the effect that the Donovan-Arthur rule did not obtain unless and until the police or prosecutor learned that an attorney had been secured "to assist the accused in defending against the specific charges for which he is held” (emphasis in original) (see, also, People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ).

1980An exception was carved out in People v Taylor ( 27 NY2d 327, 332 ) to the effect that the Donovan-Arthur rule did not obtain unless and until the police or prosecutor learned that an attorney had been secured "to assist the accused in defending against the specific charges for which he is held” (emphasis in original) (see, also, People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ).

21979–1980
People v. Ramos green
ny · 1976
2 sentences

1980The Taylor exception rearticulated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 , supra) was later refined and limited in a series of cases (see People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; see, also, People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249; but cf. People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ).

1978Any ambiguity in the manner in which Rill undertook to expand his representation of defendant cannot be permitted to constitute a waiver of his right to counsel in the absence of the attorney (People v Ramos, supra, p 618 ).

21978–1980
People v. Angus green
nyappdiv · 1981
2 sentences

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

11983–1983
People v. Angus green
ny · 1982
2 sentences

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

1983Not applicable either is the Donovan-Arthur rule (People v Donovan, 13 NY2d 148 ; People v Arthur, 22 NY2d 325 ), which precludes questioning in counsel’s absence once counsel in fact has entered the picture (see People v Angus, 56 NY2d 549 , affg 81 AD2d 971 ).

11983–1983
People v. Settles green
ny · 1978
2 sentences

1981Under the second rule, which may be referred to as the Settles-Samuels doctrine, the nonwaivability principle attaches upon actual commencement of the criminal proceeding (e.g., People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 , supra; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ).

1981Under the second rule, which may be referred to as the Settles-Samuels doctrine, the nonwaivability principle attaches upon actual commencement of the criminal proceeding (e.g., People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 , supra; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ).

11981–1981
People v. Samuels green
ny · 1980
2 sentences

1981Under the second rule, which may be referred to as the Settles-Samuels doctrine, the nonwaivability principle attaches upon actual commencement of the criminal proceeding (e.g., People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 , supra; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ).

1981Under the second rule, which may be referred to as the Settles-Samuels doctrine, the nonwaivability principle attaches upon actual commencement of the criminal proceeding (e.g., People v Samuels, 49 NY2d 218 , supra; People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154 ).

11981–1981
People v. Carl green
ny · 1978
1 sentence

1980The Taylor exception rearticulated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 , supra) was later refined and limited in a series of cases (see People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; see, also, People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249; but cf. People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ).

11980–1980
People v. Ermo green
ny · 1979
1 sentence

1980The Taylor exception rearticulated in People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479 , supra) was later refined and limited in a series of cases (see People v Ermo, 47 NY2d 863 ; People v Carl, 46 NY2d 806 ; People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610 ; see, also, People v Vella, 21 NY2d 249; but cf. People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ).

11980–1980
People v. Rogers green
ny · 1979
2 sentences

1980This was followed by a long, and, at times, confusing effort to clarify the scope of the Donovan-Arthur rule with regard to matters unrelated to an action in which a defendant already had legal representation (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167, 171 , supra; People v Cunningham, supra, p 209).

1980This was followed by a long, and, at times, confusing effort to clarify the scope of the Donovan-Arthur rule with regard to matters unrelated to an action in which a defendant already had legal representation (see People v Rogers, 48 NY2d 167, 171 , supra; People v Cunningham, supra, p 209).

11980–1980
People v. Simons green
ny · 1968
2 sentences

1979We have, until today, always held that a defendant may waive counsel without having an attorney present although he is represented by counsel on an entirely unrelated pending charge (see, e.g., People v Stanley, 15 NY2d 30 ; People v Simons, 22 NY2d 533 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ; People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ).

1979We have, until today, always held that a defendant may waive counsel without having an attorney present although he is represented by counsel on an entirely unrelated pending charge (see, e.g., People v Stanley, 15 NY2d 30 ; People v Simons, 22 NY2d 533 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ; People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ).

11979–1979
People v. Stanley green
ny · 1964
2 sentences

1979We have, until today, always held that a defendant may waive counsel without having an attorney present although he is represented by counsel on an entirely unrelated pending charge (see, e.g., People v Stanley, 15 NY2d 30 ; People v Simons, 22 NY2d 533 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ; People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ).

1979We have, until today, always held that a defendant may waive counsel without having an attorney present although he is represented by counsel on an entirely unrelated pending charge (see, e.g., People v Stanley, 15 NY2d 30 ; People v Simons, 22 NY2d 533 ; People v Hetherington, 27 NY2d 242 ; People v Taylor, 27 NY2d 327 ; People v Clark, 41 NY2d 612 ; People v Coleman, 43 NY2d 222 ).

11979–1979
Chapman v. California red
scotus · 1967
2 sentences

1976(People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 ; Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 .) Where crucial self incriminating evidence was erroneously placed before a trial jury or where a defendant’s guilty plea resulted from an erroneous denial of his suppression motion, such error would not, ordinarily, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

1976(People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 ; Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 .) Where crucial self incriminating evidence was erroneously placed before a trial jury or where a defendant’s guilty plea resulted from an erroneous denial of his suppression motion, such error would not, ordinarily, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

11976–1976
People v. Crimmins green
ny · 1975
2 sentences

1976(People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 ; Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 .) Where crucial self incriminating evidence was erroneously placed before a trial jury or where a defendant’s guilty plea resulted from an erroneous denial of his suppression motion, such error would not, ordinarily, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

1976(People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 ; Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24 .) Where crucial self incriminating evidence was erroneously placed before a trial jury or where a defendant’s guilty plea resulted from an erroneous denial of his suppression motion, such error would not, ordinarily, be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

11976–1976

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check