McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶16
But New York law does not require a trial court to instruct a jury on whether an initial involuntary confession taints later confessions and thus imposes an obligation to disregard them. See People v. Smith, 209 App. Div. 2d 1005, 1006, 619 N. Y. S. 2d 990, 991 (1994); People v. Rabady, 28 App. Div. 3d 794, 795, 812 N. Y. S. 2d 884, 884–885 (2006); People v. Marti nez, 63 App. Div. 3d 859, 860, 880 N. Y. S. 2d 492, 493 (2009); People v. Medina, 146 App. Div. 2d 344, 350–351, 541 N. Y. S. 2d 355, 358–359 (1989). The trial court therefore did not instruct the jury to decide whether Hernandez's post- warning confessions were sufficiently attenuated from his first, pre-warning confession. App. 192a (noting that the court did not instruct the jury “how to consider Hernandez's post-Miranda confessions depending on what the jury determined with respect to the pre-Miranda confession” given at…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.