Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Even were we to assume arguendo that the oral statement made to the detectives should have been suppressed, there was a definite and pronounced break between the oral statement and the subsequent written and videotaped statements. The substantial intervening period of time and readministration of new Miranda warnings attenuated any possible taint from the allegedly inadmissible first statement (see, People v Chapple...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.