Does the Prosecution Have to Give Explanation for Undue Delay In Providing Counsel to Accused ?
In People v. Wilson (56 NY2d 692 ), the Court rejected the argument that physical police custody pending arraignment, prior to the preparation of a complaint, alone caused the right to counsel to attach so as to require suppression of statements obtained in the absence of counsel. (Accord, People v. Hopkins, 58 NY2d 1079  [in which delay in arraignment was recognized as a factor to be considered in assessing the voluntariness of prearraignment statements].)
However, in People v. Cooper (101 AD2d 1, 10 [4th Dept 1984]), upon which defendant relies, an exception to this general rule was annunciated: "i.e., that if there has been unnecessary delay in filing the accusatory instrument or in arraignment, and the police have caused this delay for the purpose of depriving the defendant of his right to counsel, his critical stage right to counsel will be deemed to have arisen."
Quoting People v. Blake (35 NY2d 331, 340), Justice Hancock wrote in Cooper (at 10) that undue delay is " 'prima facie a suspect circumstance suggesting that the delay may have been for the purpose of depriving the accused of counsel' and the prosecution has 'the burden to explain and offer proof ... why the opportunity to so have counsel ... was not afforded.' "