The Rise and Fall of New York's Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule

By Dillon, Mark C.; Lubell, Lewis J. | Albany Law Review, Spring 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Rise and Fall of New York's Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule

Dillon, Mark C., Lubell, Lewis J., Albany Law Review

If the reader were to access the 1981 case of People v. Bartolomeo (1) on Westlaw, there is a prominent red flag to the left of the citation, meaning that at least one legal proposition in Bartolomeo is no longer good or current law. In fact, the Bartolomeo portion of the Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule, which is the subject of this article, was overruled by the New York State Court of Appeals in 1990 in the case of People v. Bing. (2) Although the history of the Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule was relatively brief, spanning only a single decade, its impact was significant to defendants, crime victims, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and legal academicians alike. The Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule was controversial during its time. The rule was launched into New York State's jurisprudence as a significant expansion to the state's criminal exclusionary laws, and was shot at during the decade that followed until it crashed and burned in 1990.

The purpose of this article is not to necessarily debate whether the Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule was a wise or unwise expansion of the exclusionary rule and New York State's right to counsel. Rather, this article chronicles the history of well-intentioned efforts to assure the greatest degree of constitutional protections for persons confronted by the law enforcement arm of the state, and the courts' ultimate recognition that the expansion of the exclusionary rule proved to be impractical and unworkable for a variety of reasons, leading to its reversal. More than two additional decades have passed since Bartolomeo was reversed by the Court of Appeals. With hindsight and the perspectives that come with time, we may revisit the rise and fall of this controversial constitutional and evidentiary rule.


The Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule arises out of the federal Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (3) The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (4) The right to counsel is the last of several rights contained in the Sixth Amendment, including the rights to speedy and public trials, impartial juries, information about crimes charged, the confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. (5)

The New York State Constitution contains language that is arguably less expansive about the right to counsel than its federal counterpart. (6) The state constitution provides that, "[i]n any trial in any court whatever the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel as in civil actions and shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and be confronted with the witnesses against him or her." (7) Nevertheless, New York's constitutional protections in favor of the accused are generally more expansive than their federal counterparts, as New York's interpretation of the right to counsel is defined within the broader constitutional context of the state's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the right to due process. (8)

In New York, a statement to law enforcement personnel is not admissible against the defendant at trial if it is "involuntarily made." (9) The state's Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") section 60.45(2) defines an involuntarily made confession, admission, or other statement as including those obtained:

(a) [b]y any person by the use or threatened use of physical force upon the defendant or another person, or by means of any other improper conduct or undue pressure which impaired the defendant's physical or mental condition to the extent of undermining his ability to make a choice whether or not to make a statement; or

(b) [b]y a public servant engaged in law enforcement activity or by a person then acting under his direction or in cooperation with him:

(i) by means of any promise or statement of fact, which promise or statement creates a substantial risk that the defendant might falsely incriminate himself; or

(ii) in violation of such rights as the defendant may derive from the constitution of this state or of the United States.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Rise and Fall of New York's Rogers-Bartolomeo Rule


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?