People v. Zappulla’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A witness testified that the defendant was with [Jennifer] in Room 234 at the Golden Gate Inn in the days and hours immediately before the crime. Surveillance videotape from the motel showed the defendant leaving and then reentering the motel shortly before the police arrived and arrested him on March 17, 1998. Expert testimony indicated that [Jennifer’s] death occurred sometime between the evening of March 16 and the early morning of March 17. The key to Room 234, the room where [Jennifer’s] body was found, was recovered from the defendant’s person after his arrest. D.N.A. testing of blood found on the defendant’s clothing revealed that the blood was [Jennifer’s], In addition, the defendant admitted to an inmate, who was incarcerated with the defendant pending trial, that when he choked [Jennifer] “blood came out.” In light of this overwhelming evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the error of admitting the defendant’s statement into evidence might have contributed to his conviction.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zappulla v. New York · 296 F. Supp. 2d 309 - Zappulla v. New York

2. “The hearing court should have suppressed the defendant’s confession to Scarpati’s murder. The general rule is that “where a person in police custody has been issued Miranda warnings and voluntarily and intelligently waives those rights, it is not necessary to repeat the warnings prior to subsequent questioning within a reasonable time thereafter, so long as the custody has remained continuous” (see, People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710 , 484 N.Y.S.2d 64 , Iv denied 64 N.Y.2d 889 , 487 N.Y.S.2d 1036 , 476 N.E.2d 1013 , cert denied 472 U.S. 1021 , 105 S.Ct. 3487 , 87 L.Ed.2d 621 ). The defendant correctly contends that no reported case in this state has held that a 24-hour interval in questioning is reasonable. Indeed, in the reported Appellate Division cases where suppression was denied, the longest interval between the issuance of the Miranda warnings and the subsequent interrogation has been less than 12 hours (see, People v. Starks, 139 A.D.2d 681 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dep’t 1988) [9½ hours]; People v. Baker, 208 A.D.2d 758 , 617 N.Y.S.2d 798 (2d Dep’t 1994) [8 hours]; People v. Thomas, 233 A.D.2d 347 , 649 N.Y.S.2d 817 (2d Dep’t 2001) [7 hours]; People v. Cody, 260 A.D.2d 718 , 689 N.Y.S.2d 245 (3d Dep’t 1999) [6 hours]; People v. McCoy, 122 A.D.2d 957 , 506 N.Y.S.2d 103 (2d Dep’t 1986) [5 hours]; People v. Kemp, 266 A.D.2d 887 , 698 N.Y.S.2d 140 (4th Dep’t 1999) [4 hours]; People v. Lagano, 191 A.D.2d 646 , 595 N.Y.S.2d 115 (2d Dep’t 1993) [2 hours]). On the other hand, -i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 2d 309 - Zappulla v. New York

3. “The hearing court properly refused to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search of the motel room. The defendant lacked standing to challenge the search as he failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room. His possession of a key to the room at the time of his arrest was insufficient to confer standing, particularly as the room was not registered to him, and, in fact, he was registered in a different room.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 F. Supp. 2d 309 - Zappulla v. New York