People v. Vann

252 N.E.2d 138, 25 N.Y.2d 913, 304 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1091
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Vann. Read the opinion of the Court — 25 N.Y.2d 753
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 1969·Published

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether the rights of the defendant under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were denied when the Trial Judge refused to apply Escobedo v. Illinois (378 U. S. 478) in determining the voluntariness of defendant’s statements. The Court of Appeals considered the defendant’s argument and held that the trial court correctly found Escobedo to be inapplicable to the facts of this case and, therefore, that there was no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. [See 25 N Y 2d 753.]

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

People v. Vann, 252 N.E.2d 138, 25 N.Y.2d 913, 304 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1091 (N.Y. 1969).

252 N.E.2d 138 (People v. Vann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Escobedo v. Illinois
378 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1964)