finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104(A)(1) violation
How later courts described this case
- finding constitutional prohibition against use of statements taken without notice to defense counsel, buttressing suppression and reversal with discussion of DR 7-104(A)(1) violation
- It would be ‘‘scandalous for a court to shift within less than two years because of the replacement of one of the majority in the old court by one who now intellectually would have preferred to have voted with the old minority and the new one. The ultimate principle is that a court is an institution and not merely a collection of individu- als . . . . This is what is meant, in part, as the rule of law and not of men.’’ [Emphasis added.]
- civil case; exclusion of evidence is not proper remedy for a violation of DR 7-104(A)(1) absent infringement of constitutional rights
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by State v. Norgaard, 201 Mont. 165 (1982)
We expressly reject the rule of People v. Hobson, supra. In adopting a per se rule the New York court has gone beyond the contours of Johnson v. Zerbst and its progeny in holding that despite “the particular facts and circumstances of [a] case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused,” Edwards v. Arizona (1981), 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883-1884, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, 385, citing Zerb
The opinion
Jasen, J. (concurring).
Convinced as I am that the reasoning which prompted the holdings in the Robles and Lopez cases has failed to produce a stable and recognized rule, I concur in the majority opinion and particularly for the respect it accords to the doctrine of stare decisis and the limited exceptions which it would allow.