History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Rudish
294 N.Y. 500
NY
1945
Check Treatment

Upon this reargument we assume that the evidence against Rudish was sufficient and that as to him no error of law was committed upon the trial. Nevertheless, since the Supreme Court of the United States directed a new trial as to Malinski because one of his confessions was inadmissible, the defendant Rudish should, in the interest of justice, receive a new trial with that confession excluded.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, DESMOND, THACHER and DYE, JJ., concur; LEWIS and CONWAY, JJ., dissent on the ground that the decision on this reargument should await the retrial of People v. Malinski.

Judgment of conviction reversed, etc.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Rudish
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 19, 1945
Citation: 294 N.Y. 500
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.