6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2024 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. Dunbargreen2 sentences2024What is required is that any preamble to the warnings not "effectively [vitiate] or at least [neutralize] the effect of the subsequently-delivered Miranda warnings." People v. Dunbar , 24 NY3d 304, 316 (2014); see also People v. Rivera , 128 AD3d 1100, 1101 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2015). 2024What is required is that any preamble to the warnings not "effectively [vitiate] or at least [neutralize] the effect of the subsequently-delivered Miranda warnings." People v. Dunbar , 24 NY3d 304, 316 (2014); see also People v. Rivera , 128 AD3d 1100, 1101 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2015). | 5 | 6 |
People v. Rhodesgreen2 sentences2024What is required is that any preamble to the warnings not "effectively [vitiate] or at least [neutralize] the effect of the subsequently-delivered Miranda warnings." People v. Dunbar , 24 NY3d 304, 316 (2014); see also People v. Rivera , 128 AD3d 1100, 1101 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2015). 2024What is required is that any preamble to the warnings not "effectively [vitiate] or at least [neutralize] the effect of the subsequently-delivered Miranda warnings." People v. Dunbar , 24 NY3d 304, 316 (2014); see also People v. Rivera , 128 AD3d 1100, 1101 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2015). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Newyork v. Dunbar
green
2 sentences2015Although the detectives prefaced the recitation of defendant’s rights by stating that they wanted to hear defendant’s “version of what happened” in order to “clear things up,” and that defendant would be free to leave after speaking with them, those statements did not “effectively vitiate [ ] or . . . neutralize] ] the effect of the subsequently-delivered Miranda warnings” (People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304, 316 [2014], cert denied 575 US —, 135 S Ct 2052 [2015]). 2015Although the detectives prefaced the recitation of defendant’s rights by stating that they wanted to hear defendant’s “version of what happened” in order to “clear things up,” and that defendant would be free to leave after speaking with them, those statements did not “effectively vitiate [ ] or . . . neutralize] ] the effect of the subsequently-delivered Miranda warnings” (People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304, 316 [2014], cert denied 575 US —, 135 S Ct 2052 [2015]). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
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.