PEOPLE, res, v. KWAMIE MITCHELL, def-ap

3522. PEOPLE, res, v. KWAMIE MITCHELL, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Joseph M. Nursey of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Christine DiDomenico of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at suppression hearing; Juan M. Merchan, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 16, 2011, convicting defendant of four counts of robbery in the second degree and two counts of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3522. PEOPLE, res, v. KWAMIE MITCHELL, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Joseph M. Nursey of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Christine DiDomenico of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J. at suppression hearing; Juan M. Merchan, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered September 16, 2011, convicting defendant of four counts of robbery in the second degree and two counts of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The hearing evidence established the voluntariness of defendant’s statements, which followed Miranda warnings and waivers, and which were not accompanied by any coercive circumstances (see generally Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 US 279, 285-288 [1991]; People v. Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38-39 [1977]). There is no evidence that anything coercive occurred during the overnight and morning periods during which defendant was lodged at a police station before the investigating detective administered the warnings and began the interrogation. Although the People bear the burden of establishing that defendant’s statements were voluntary, “[t]his does not mean… that [they] are mandated to produce all police officers who had contact with the defendant from arrest to the time that the challenged statements were elicited” (People v. Witherspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974 [1985]).

PEOPLE, res, v. KWAMIE MITCHELL, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal