After MR was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree and sentenced to two years in prison, an appeal was filed.
Even though MR's right to bring the appeal was challenged, upon reviewing the record, the Appellate Division, First Department, concluded that MR did not validly waive his right challenge the outcome because the lower court's explanation did not ensure that the defendant fully understood the consequences of any purported waiver or that he had a “full appreciation of the [waiver’s] consequences.”
Notwithstanding that determination, the AD1 found that MR’s post-Miranda statement offered at the precinct was admissible, since it was made more than three hours after his last inadmissible statement, at a different location, and to a different officer. The AD1 determined that the circumstances of the earlier Miranda violation did not taint the subsequent statement, and that the latter was thus admissible.
That taint as easy as it looks.
# # #
DECISION