The following excerpt is from People v. Robles, 533 NE2d 240, 536 N.Y.S.2d 401, 72 N.Y.2d 689 (N.Y. 1988):
Our decision in People v. Colwell, 65 N.Y.2d 883, 885, 493 N.Y.S.2d 298, 482 N.E.2d 1214 supra also demonstrates that the Rogers rule is limited in scope to situations in which questioning on unrelated charges could interfere with the right to counsel on pending charges. In holding that Rogers did not apply after the pending charge had resulted in a conviction, we noted that "primary concern underlying Rogers was that a defendant could incriminate himself on the pending charge, on which he is represented, even though the questions ostensibly concern unrelated charges."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.