SHUPE

v.

NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• United States ex rel. Anthony Russo v. The State OF NEW Jersey & the Principal Keeper of the State Prison at Trenton, 351 F.2d 429 (3d Cir. 1965)
  …ated by the California Supreme Court: “To require the request would be to favor the defendant whose sophistication or status had fortuitously prompted him to make it.” People v. Dorado, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 178, 398 P. 2d 361, 370 (1965), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 1765, 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965). Professors Kamisar and Choper have stated this same rationale in slightly different language: “If the right is deemed sufficiently important to be a due process requirement, why is it not sufficiently importa…
• United States v. Cone, 354 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1965)
  …s right to counsel constituted sufficient ground for reversal when an incriminating statement had been admitted. The cases that have answered this question affirmatively include People v. Dorado, 40 Cal.Rptr. 264, 394 P. 2d 952 (1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 1765, 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965); State v. Neely, 239 Or. 487, 395 P. 2d 557 (1964); and State v. Dufour, 206 A. 2d 82 (R.I.1965) (alternative holding). Among those decided the other way are People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E. 2d 33 (…
• Harrison v. United States, 359 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1965)
  …did not request counsel. There are varying views as to whether an adult offender must request counsel in order to invoke Escobedo. Compare People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal. Rptr. 169, 398 P. 2d 361 (1964), cert. denied, California v. Dorado, 381 U.S. 937, 85 S.Ct. 1765, 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965); United States ex rel. Russo v. State of New Jersey, 351 F. 2d 429, (3d Cir. 1965); with People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 205 N.E. 2d 852, 257 N.Y.S.2d 924, (1965); Tracy v. Common [*227] wealth, 207 N.E. 2d 16…