People v. Witherspoon
Cases that cite this one
97 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Moye v. Corcoran (District Court, W.D. New York 2009)
- State v. Lawrence (Conn. 2007)
- People v. Colon (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2004)
- People v. Agosto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Thomas v. Lord (District Court, E.D. New York 2005)
- People v. Colon (New York Supreme Court 2004)
- People v. Giron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Medina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Holloway (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Rosado (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Hucks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- People v. Becker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- People v. Maquila (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2025)
- People v. Noble (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. J.B. (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County 2024)
- People v. Jian Qun Hunag (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2024)
- People v. Jian Qun Hunag (New York Supreme Court, Queens County 2024)
- People v. Bailey (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Bailey (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Hernandez (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Hernandez (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- People v. Kearse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Kearse (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Jimenez (Carlos) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
When a defendant properly challenges statements made by him that the People intend to offer at trial, it is, of course, the People’s burden to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such statements wpre voluntarily made (People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35). This does not mean, however, that the People are mandated to produce all police officers who had contact with the defendant from arrest to the time that the challenged statements were elicited.
In this case, defendant presented no bona fide factual predicate which demonstrated that such officers possessed material evidence on the question of whether the statements were the product overtly or inherently of coercive methods, so the People could meet their burden through the testimony of the officer who elicited the confession. The attorney’s affidavit in support of the motion to suppress was conclusory and defendant offered no evidence at the hearing even though he was previously afforded complete discovery of the People’s case file.
Moreover, insofar as defendant suggests that the other officers may have elicited prior statements from him in violation of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436), we would note that the Supreme Court has held that this would not bar admission
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.