Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the complainant's identification testimony should have been suppressed because his identity was learned by virtue of a taped conversation between the complainant and a codefendant who did not receive Miranda warnings, although he was in "custody." We find no basis for suppression of the defendant's identification by the complainant. The right to object to the "`use of intercepted conversations...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
