 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ROGERS NY2D CHARGE ATTORNEY COUNSEL CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION YORK ARRAIGNMENT RAPE CHARGE POLICE BING COURT CLINTON COUNTY JAIL SUPRA CUSTODY REPRESENTATION PROBATION VIOLATION AMENDMENT ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP APPELLATE DIVISION INCARCERATION FORMAL PROCEEDINGS STATES CONSTITUTION PRIVILEGE SELF-INCRIMINATION PROTECTION COMMENCEMENT RESPONDENT STATE DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION |
THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. FRANCIS J. BURDO, RESPONDENT.
91 N.Y.2d 146, 690 N.E.2d 854, 667 N.Y.S.2d 970 (1997).
October 30, 1997
3 No. 192
(97 NY Int. 0187)
Decided October 30, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Penelope D. Clute, for appellant.
MaryAnne Bukolt, for respondent.
New York State Defenders Association; New York State District
Attorneys' Association, amici curiae.
SMITH, J.:
Applying the principle enunciated in People v Rogers (48 NY2d 167),
we conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the custodial
interrogation was improper and defendant's statements made during
questioning must be suppressed. The order of the Appellate Division
should therefore be affirmed.
Defendant was incarcerated in the Clinton County Jail after his arrest
and arraignment on rape charges. Defendant was also being held on an
unrelated probation violation, for which he was arrested and detained
prior to the rape arrest. On December 12, 1994, police investigators
went to the jail to question defendant concerning the June 1993
disappearance and death of Leo Gebo.
The officers met with defendant in the library of the jail where he
was advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant stated that he understood
his rights and was willing to speak to the officers. One investigator
specifically asked if defendant wanted to speak to an attorney but he
declined. Defendant was also informed that he could terminate the
interview at any time, and that the officers were aware that he was
represented by counsel for the pending rape charge. It was agreed that
the officers would not question defendant about the pending charges
for which defendant was incarcerated.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
