Gagne v. McClellan

Second Circuit

Gagne v. McClellan

129 F.3d 254, 1997 WL 697256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 1997

DocketNo. 342, Docket 96-3717

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 F.3d 254 (Gagne v. McClellan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gagne v. McClellan, 129 F.3d 254, 1997 WL 697256 (2d Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Stephen Gagne appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Edward R. Korman, Judge, denying his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) for a writ of habeas corpus vacating his state-court conviction on the grounds that his right to remain silent and his right of confrontation had been violated. Although we do not subscribe to the view that a twice-questioned defendant who makes self-incriminating statements following the second interrogation would have a less compelling Fifth Amendment claim if he was not given Miranda warnings before the first questioning than if he was given such warnings, we otherwise affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Korman’s Amended Memorandum & Order dated December 5, 1996, published at — F.Supp. —, 1996 WL 929719 (E.D.N.Y.1996).

We have considered all of Gagne’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Stephen Gagne appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Edward R. Korman, Judge, denying his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) for a writ of habeas corpus vacating his state-court conviction on the grounds that his right to remain silent and his right of confrontation had been violated. Although we do not subscribe to the view that a twice-questioned defendant who makes self-incriminating statements following the second interrogation would have a less compelling Fifth Amendment claim if he was not given Miranda warnings before the first questioning than if he was given such warnings, we otherwise affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Korman’s Amended Memorandum & Order dated December 5, 1996, published at — F.Supp. —, 1996 WL 929719 (E.D.N.Y.1996).

We have considered all of Gagne’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 F.3d 254, 1997 WL 697256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gagne-v-mcclellan-ca2-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack