Scenario 1

[Jynkxxie]

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?

[metallicat]

I know you want opinions from cops, and probably American law, but I read the Charter of Rights section on right to counsel for Canada, and my best understanding is that the suspect wanted to speak with counsel and got his wish. Shouldn't the lawyer have understood that the police were now free to question the suspect? I think the detective once again informing the suspect of his right to have an attorney present was waived, and that gave the police the freedom to interrogate the suspect. I think the self-incriminating statements would be admissible. And if the suspect had wished to remain silent, I believe it is the duty of the police to wait until he/she has reasonable time to consult with counsel. At least in Canada. And I could be totally wrong too considering I don't have experience in this area.

[Ghost 1]

If he initially said he wanted a lawyer,and got one,once he says he wants to talk it's on him. He was read his rights a second time and he said he understood his rights and wanted to talk.........yes the confession is admissible.

[Darin]

I agree with Ghost1. He talked to his lawyer and was even read his Miranda the second time. Ol Q should fry ;)

[Jynkxxie]

O.k. what about the second question.

Thanks for the replies guys!

[Darin]

Well if Q excersized the right to remain silent and then started talking then I think it should stand up in court.

[Switchback]

You can decide to speak anytime. Just because you initially refuse to waive your rights does not mean you cannot waive them later. Admissable.

[wpd11]

This is true (admissible )

[mcsap]

Lone voice in the wilderness here. If a def invokes the "lawyer phrase" we cannot further question him without a lawyer present. Period.

Now if the accused calls us and wants to tell us ANYTHING, fine as long as we dont interrogate.


Spontaneous statements are also fine.

This is our state law.

[gdowkpc]

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.

[metallicat]

So are you guys saying that in Jynkxxie's scenario, the statements would NOT be admissible?

[gdowkpc]

Yes.

[metallicat]

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.

[wpd11]

If the suspect wishes to speak to the police he/she can at there own free will. He said that he would first talk to his lawyer then would make a decision. He did talk to his lawyer and was advised of his rights again and stated that he wanted to talk. Anything that he said would be admissable in a court of law. There is case-law out there on this exact subject. He would be on his way to prison. Plus if he was already charged for the crime without his statement then the probable cause was against him anyways. His statement must not have been needed.

[mcsap]

True, if the suspect wants to talk to us, make a statement to us after asking for a lawyer, he/she can do that as long as we dont interrogate. We can just smile, say uh-huh and write or tape it down.