![]() ?At trial, several of the officers repeated their testimony from the suppression hearing. The court denied defendants motion to suppress, concluding that his statements were voluntary. Defendant spoke to Detectives in both English and Cantonese. Defendant wrote out statements in English then signed them. ![]() At the suppression hearing, the People submitted testimony from detectives describing the investigation, as well as documentary evidence that defendant was sufficiently fluent in English to understand the surrounding events and his constitutional rights. After several hours of questioning over three days, and after having implicated two others in the crimes, he confessed to brutally killing Cho and Sek.ĭefendant was charged with six counts of Murder in the First degree, six counts of Murder in the Second Degree, one count of Assault in the First Degree, three counts of Burglary in the first degree, three counts of Attempted Robbery in the First Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree.ĭefendant moves to suppress his statements to the police. Defendant was not a suspect in the murders, but during the course of police investigation, detectives grew suspicious of his role in the crimes after they identified several inconsistencies in his statements to police. The People must establish that the defendant grasped that he or she did not have to speak to the interrogator that any statement might be used to the subjects disadvantage and that an attorneys assistance would be provided upon request, at any time, and before questioning is continued.įacts: Defendant Jin Cheng Lin challenges his conviction for murder, burglary and attempted robbery arising from events leading to the death of Cho Man Ng and her brother, Sek Man Ng. The Court held that a defendants waiver of his Miranda rights must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ). A series of circumstances may be insufficient to deem a confession involuntary.?While defendant makes a compelling case that the police were intentionally dilatory in delaying his arraignment and thus prolonged his detention, the Court held that they cannot say, based on the totality of the circumstances and as a matter of law, that his statements were involuntary. In order to assess the voluntariness of defendants statements, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Holding: The Court of the Appeals held that it is the Peoples burden (People v Holland, 48 NY2d 861, 862 ), to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements of a defendant they intend to rely upon at trial are voluntary, (People v Thomas, 22 NY3d 629, 641 ). Issue: Whether Defendants confession was an involuntary product of psychological pressure during his lengthy detention and the prearraignment delay following his arrest and whether he knowingly waived his Miranda rights because of his inability to speak English. Jin Cheng Lin 2016 NY Slip Op 01205 New York Court of Appeals Decided on: February 18, 2016 Fifth Amendment Right To Remain Silent: Delay In Arraignment And Knowing Waivers People v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |