The federal rules require that a party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days. Most states follow the 30-day rule as well. The federal rules, as well as state rules, require that the person answering the interrogatories sign and make an oath affirming the truthfulness of the answers.
May 24, 2012 · You can serve discovery now and at any time during the litigation as long as the discovery is served with enough time to respond (usually 30 days plus 5 for mailing) before discovery cut off (which is 30 days before trial.) You probably do not have a trial date yet, since you just received answers, so you do not have a discovery cut-off date yet.
An interrogation is the direct questioning of a person under conditions which are partly or fully controlled by the questioner. A police interrogation involves persuasion, influence, and trickery with the goal being to obtain a confession or at least an admission of anything that would implicate the suspect in criminal behavior.
More often than not, someone being interrogated by the police does not have an attorney on call, and has to wait for their family to hire one or have one appointed by the court. This can take anywhere from several days to several weeks, and most people don’t want to sit in jail that long.
You are not too late. You can serve interrogatories now. Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.020, subdivision (a), provides: " (a) A defendant may propound interrogatories to a party...
If you are filing in California the 10 day rule is correct. I myself think it makes little sense. Where I practice attorneys usually file discovery with the complaint. Be sure and look up the maximums. You probably have a limit on the number of interrogatories. Your county law library probably has a form book
Attorney Chen is correct. The rule is not that you MUST SERVE discovery 10 days after the summons was served, the rule is that you MUST WAIT TO SERVE discovery until 10 days after the summons was served.
In trying to elicit information from a suspect, the police are not allowed to: 1 Use physical force such as torture 2 Mental coercion such as mental torture, brainwashing, or drugging 3 Threats or insults 4 Exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment 5 Use inducements, such as the promise of bail or of non-prosecution
An interrogation is the direct questioning of a person under conditions which are partly or fully controlled by the questioner. A police interrogation involves persuasion, influence, and trickery with the goal being to obtain a confession or at least an admission of anything that would implicate the suspect in criminal behavior.
An interrogation can occur at the police station, in jail or at the scene of a crime. There are two types of police interrogations: Custodial interrogation – A custodial interrogation is an interrogation of a person in custody who is reasonably suspected of being directly involved in or responsible for an offense.
A non custodial interrogation can be ended by leaving. If the police do not allow the person to leave, then the interrogation has changed from a non custodial interrogation to a custodial interrogation. A custodial police interrogation may be stopped by: A clear request for an attorney. A clear request to remain silent.
A custodial police interrogation may be stopped by: A clear request for an attorney. A clear request to remain silent. But after either request, if the suspect initiates conversation, then any statements made may be used against the suspect as evidence at trial. Find the Right Criminal Lawyer.
Consequences of an Illegal Interrogation. Evidence obtained directly as a result of an illegal interrogation cannot be used in court as evidence against a defendant. In addition, evidence that would not have been obtained but for the illegal interrogation may also be inadmissible at trial.
Evidence obtained directly as a result of an illegal interrogation cannot be used in court as evidence against a defendant. In addition, evidence that would not have been obtained but for the illegal interrogation may also be inadmissible at trial.
If the defendant/suspect/client can’t provide any information that might be mitigating or exculpatory, their attorney will probably tell them to keep their mouth shut and not answer any questions.
The biggest advantage for the suspect to have an attorney present is to ensure they are afforded all rights.
The attorney can also relieve some of the uncertainty that comes from being confined to an interrogation room while other events they don’t know about are transpiring outside.
Then, the lawyer will advise whether the person should speak to the police at all. No, the person does not have to speak with the police. Sometimes you might hear about how someone is not cooperating with the police.
The police are allowed to detain and interrogate you in order to determine whether or not probable cause exists for an arrest. This can last hours if necessary, but if they can’t develop PC for an arrest, they have to let you go. What this period of time is, is dependent on the facts at hand, and is a judgeme.
Continue Reading. There’s no set time. Police procedurals like Law and Order have popularized the idea the police can hold you for 24 hours without charge, but that’s not a blanket rule. When you are being interrogated as a suspect in a crime but not under arrest, you are subject to investigative detention.
Whether you are under arrest or not, there is a fine line between extended interrogation and coercion. Withholding food, sleep, etc. for an extended period of time gives a defense attorney grounds to argue a confession is coerced. If a judge agrees, you lose all the evidence.
Another basic technique is maximization, in which the police try to scare the suspect into talking by telling him all of the horrible things he'll face if he's convicted of the crime in a court of law. Fear tends to make people talk.
In addition to keeping the suspect's confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn't have a chance to ask for a lawyer.
Getting someone to confess to a crime is not a simple task, and the fact that detectives sometimes end up with confessions from the innocent testifies to their expertise in psychological manipulation . No two interrogations are alike, but most exploit certain weaknesses in human nature.
No two interrogations are alike, but most exploit certain weaknesses in human nature. These weaknesses typically rely on the stress that results when people experience contrasting extremes, like dominance and submission, control and dependence, and the maximization and minimization of consequences.
Confessions obtained by "third degree" techniques -- deprivation of food and water, bright lights, physical discomfort and long isolation, beating with rubber hoses and other instruments that don't leave marks -- were usually admissible in court as long as the suspect signed a waiver stating the confession was voluntary.
Between the 1930s and 1960s, though, a crackdown on police tactics gradually changed the practice of interrogation. While the Supreme Court had ruled as early as 1897 against involuntary confessions, it was in 1937 that things really started to change. In the case Brown v.
By the 1950s, confessions were considered involuntary not only if police beat the suspect, but also if they held a suspect for an unnecessarily extended period of time, deprived him of sleep, food, water or bathroom facilities, promised some benefit if the suspect confessed or threatened some harm if he didn't.
After the defendant files his answer with the court in response to plaintiff’s complaint, the parties move into the “discovery” stage. In the discovery stage, both parties have the chance to learn (or “discover”) what evidence the other side has.
In the discovery stage, both parties have the chance to learn (or “discover”) what evidence the other side has. The discovery stage is important for a number of reasons:
The discovery stage is important for a number of reasons: It allows each side to prepare for trial. During discovery, the parties gather the evidence (documents, witness testimony, and the like) they will need to submit at trial to prove their case or defend against the other side’s claims.
During discovery, the parties gather the evidence (documents, witness testimony, and the like) they will need to submit at trial to prove their case or defend against the other side’s claims. It allows parties to explore the strengths and weaknesses in the case.
Using discovery tools, the parties have the chance to talk to the other side and to witnesses, to see what documents and evidence the other side has that may help or hurt the case, and to learn the other side’s position on critical facts and legal issues. It allows the parties to evaluate settlement.
It allows the parties to evaluate settlement. Once each party knows what evidence exists to support or undercut the claims and defenses in the case, they are in a good position to talk about settling the case without going to trial. It allows the parties to gather the information they need to file motions.
“Motions” are written submissions to the court that ask the judge to rule on some (or all) issues in the case. Motions can narrow the issues for trial or even resolve the case completely before trial.