Scenario 1

[Switchback]

I was under the understanding that the guy just wanted to start talking after he had seen his lawyer. You cannot question him. However, if you walk in and say goodmorning on Mon mornaing and he wants to sing...

[coucousis]

Difficult to say... From a legal point of view the suspect was not questionned before he spoke to the lawyer.. therefore I think that his legal rigths were respected ....
He spoke to his lawyer and was given legal advices...

The investigator was wise enougth to read the rigths a second time before interviewing the suspect .... One thing bother me however.... So much time elapse between the original moment of arrest and the accused got in contact with other inmates.... I mean down here we have to hold a Voir-Dire evidence to demonstrate 2 things-
1- that the accused was informed of his rigths(this would be the case now)
2- that the accused did not received any threats or promess before giving his statement.

At this level I'm not so sure that the investigator can prove without a doubt that there was no threat or promises pronounce to the suspect....
We usually interrogate soon after the accused spoke with his lawyer because we have to control the environnement of the suspect and we have to prove that he did not speak or talk to anyone(therefore could'nt receive threat or promise).

To me the fact that the accused did speak and spent time physically with other is an obstacle to the investigator duty to prove without doubt that the accused NEVER RECEIVED any threats or Promises from anyone.

In my mind the statement would be rejected easily should a good defense lawyer shows the court that there migth have been threats or promises........

The only way it would now be admissible would be if he gives them freely to the investigator without any questions being ask to him.... Therefore the suspect should be the one calling the detective himself...

[Lfpdlieu302]

O.k. Lets do something fun.

The police arrested Quentin on a murder charge, booked him, and put him in jail because he couldn ot make bail. Shortly after he was first jailed, Dectective Angstrom read Quentin his full Miranda rights, and asked if he would answer some questions regarding the murder with which he was charged. Quentin responded, "I want a lawyer, and I might talk to you after I talk to the lawyer." Over the weekend, while Quentin was still in jail, a court-appointed lawyer visited him and discussed the charge. (the lawyer did not anticipate that Quentin would be questioned again, so he did not tell Quentin that he should remain silent if Questioning resumed.) On Monday morning, Detective Butts came in to Quentin's cell, ascertained that Quentin had met with the lawyer, gave Quentin his Miranda warnings again, and asked him if he would now discuss the case. Quentin agreed to do so. In response to the questions by Butts, Quentin implicated himself in the crime. May these incriminating statements be introduced against Quentin at the trial? Would the answer be the same if Quentin had chosen to remain silent rather than demand and attorney?

i think the only thing that would save the statements here was that the suspect was read his miranda warning again before being questioned. the suspect did say he might talk to the police after confering with his attorney. if all the officer did was ask him if he wanted to speak with him after speaking with his attorney, and the guy says yes, i think its good to go. especially after being read his rights again.

[Jynkxxie]

Thanks guys. I think I know the answers to these questions, I just have to back them up now with some cases. I have a particular case picked out for the other senario and for this one I am kinda at a loss as to find one yet.

I will let you all know what the answer is soon. Thanks for the insight though. Always helpful to have another view point when I may have missed something.

[metallicat]

Are you only allowed to use American case law?

[Jynkxxie]

Yeah, Hun. I live in America. ;) He He He...But I never object to learning more...If you can teach me.

[gdowkpc]

You lost me gdow. I don't understand why a suspect can't waive his right after he talked to a lawyer the first time.

I said above that all questioning must stop unless the suspect re-initiates the contact:

I was going to say what MCSAP said. I believe that you cannot question a suspect who has obtained a lawyer without being in the presence of his lawyer.

When a suspect asks for a lawyer, all questioning must stop unless the suspect initiates the conversation.

I think I just re-stated the above post, but this is honestly what I was thinking before I read it.

[Jynkxxie]

This was my other answer...

From the text, Criminal Procedure, Fifth Edition, by Joel Samaha page 375, "The Supreme Court intended the Miranda warnings to write a bright line rule-sometimes called the per se rule-to prevent police coercion but still allow police pressure. So, to void with the court called the "inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation," the police have to give suspects the now famous for warnings:

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used again issued in court.
3. You have the right to a lawyer.
4. If you can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed for you.

The court added four more rules to ensure that interrogators don't coerce suspects into confessing. (Police and don't have to tell suspects about these rules):

(Answer)

1. Suspects can claim the right to remain silent and time. If they in “indicate in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, “that they wish” to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." and if they state that they want to have an attorney, "the interrogation must cease until attorney is present.”

2. Any statement obtained without a lawyer present puts a “heavy burden” on the prosecution to prove that defendants "knowingly and intelligently waved" two constitutional rights: "the right against self-incrimination and the right to a lawyer." Neither silence nor later confessions count as a waiver.

3. Statements obtained in violation of the rules can't be admitted into evidence.

4. Exercising the right against self-incrimination can't be penalized. So, prosecutors can't "use at trial the fact that [defendants] stood mute or claimed [their] privilege in the face of accusations." In short, silence is not a sign of guilt, and prosecutors can suggest or even hint that it is.

My answer for question number one of this scenario is that based on the following statements in the "added rules". These statements cannot be admitted into evidence as they are in violation of these rules.

- …and if they state that they want to have an attorney, "the interrogation must cease until attorney is present ."

- Any statement obtained without a lawyer present puts a “heavy burden” on the prosecution to prove that defendants "knowingly and intelligently waved" two constitutional rights: "the right against self-incrimination and the right to a lawyer."

My answer for question number two of this scenario is that based upon the following statements in the "added rules". Had Quentin chosen to remain silent instead of requesting an attorney the actions in this scenario would have again excluded these statements made by Quentin from being admitted into evidence.

- …If they in “indicate in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning,” that they wish” to remain silent, the interrogation must cease."

- …Neither silence nor later confessions count as a waiver.

- Statements obtained in violation of the rules can't be admitted into evidence.

- Exercising the right against self-incrimination can't be penalized.

Cases That Apply:

States v. Wade

Guess we will find out next week!

[gdowkpc]

You will find that if the suspect himself re-initiates the contact with police, they can begin interrogation again.

Also, if the suspect was to confess or communicate something incriminating without the presence of a police interrogation (this happens in the back of police cars while the suspect is being transported all the time), those statements can be used against him.

And of course, the police would have to prove that these statements were intelligent and voluntary. This is not all that tough to do, since police are generally assumed to be telling the truth.