Sample of one of my appellate brief's, part six.
In fact, at no time did the Court inform the Appellant of these rights. Thus, the Court acted in error.
THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Trial Court committed reversible error by not informing the appellant of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At the conclusion of the People’s case, the Court turned to the appellant and said: “Now I’m going to ask for your testimony. So I’m going to have you tell me what happened, okay, Mr. Berger.” (p.9 lines 9-11) At no time, did the Court did inform the appellant of his right to remain silent and not to testify.
ARGUMENT
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that "[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . ." U.S. Const. Amend. V. in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), the Supreme Court held this privilege against self-incrimination applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case at bar, the Court did not inform the appellant of his right to remain silent and not testify. Appellant subsequently incriminated himself. Thus, the Court committed reversible error in failing to inform the appellant of his right to remain silent.
FOURTH QUESTION PRESENTED
Was it error for the Trial Court to order the subsequent prosecution of the appellant on a “Long Form” accusatory instrument, after the initial accusatory instrument - a simplified traffic information was dismissed for failure to provide a supporting deposition, pursuant to CPL § 170.35(1)(a).
|
