Rather, as Krayewski writes, Demesme was plainly speaking in vernacular; his statement would be more accurately transcribed as “why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dawg.” The ambiguity rests in the court transcript, not the suspect’s actual words.
If the suspect’s statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the officers have no obligation to stop questioning him. … [H]e must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.
But if the detainee invokes only the right to remain silent, the police may reinitiate questioning at a later time, provided that they honor the right to remain silent. What it means to "honor" the right to remain silent after a suspect invokes it isn't always entirely clear.
The panel of judges -- Chief Judge John Godbold and judges Paul Roney and Gerald Tjoflat -- rejected Antone's appeal for a stay, but granted a temporary delay for him to go to a higher court. 'He seeks a certificate of probable cause and a stay of his execution pending his appeal. We deny both.
I feel good about my life.'. Antone has spent his time on death row reading books on metaphysics and the occult, and said 'I have no fear of death. I want to get it over with and go on to the next' life.
Carr ruled Monday the four points cited by defense attorney Tom McCoun were invalid because McCoun had raised the same arguments two years before, and Carr had rejected them.
Haskew negotiated a plea agreement in which he testified against Gilford and Antone in return for a 35-year prison sentence. Asked how he wanted to be remembered, Antone said, 'My relatives will know how to remember me -- as a loving person. I never hurt anybody. I'll sleep fine tonight.
Supreme Court. The stay came around 1 a.m. Tuesday, six hours before Antone's 7 a.m. execution time. Advertisement.
Antone was convicted of being the middle man between mobster Victor Acosta, hit-man Benjamin Gilford and getaway car driver Ellis Haskew. Gilford admitted shooting Cloud and committed suicide in jail the day before he was to be sentenced. Acosta committed suicide in jail before he could be brought to trial.
Anthony Antone, who said he did not fear death... STARKE, Fla. -- Anthony Antone, who said he did not fear death and was ready to 'go on to the next life,' won a temporary stay of execution early Tuesday just six hours before he was to die in the electric chair. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S.
Shane takes Joe's spot at the dinner table. This troubles Marian and Bob, but Joe does not say anything about it. The reason for the switch is not apparent until one night during dinner someone comes to the door. Then Bob realizes Shane is sitting where he can see the door and see anyone who comes calling at the house.
She brings Shane and Joe biscuits, and they pause to devour them before resuming work at the stump. Joe begins cutting at the roots, and they are able to heave the stump up a few inches. They work and work, cutting at the roots underneath and shoving against the stump with their shoulders.
Once in Shane's room, Bob saw his gun—a Colt with ivory plates and the hammer filed to a sharp point. Bob asks his father why Shane keeps his gun hidden away, and Joe says he does not know and will never ask because he trusts that Shane has a good reason for it.
Chapter 3. Bob watches his father and Shane work away at the stump. Marian comes out of the house in a hat she has fashioned after the styles Shane has described to her. Frustrated that they pay more attention to the stump than they do to her, she rounds them up for dinner.
Then Bob realizes Shane is sitting where he can see the door and see anyone who comes calling at the house. Shane is always alert, always watching and listening. The townspeople who all regard Joe as their leader find Shane to be an enigma and are not sure what to make of him.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when a suspect asks for an attorney, the interrogation must end and a lawyer must be provided. But the police disregarded Demesme’s request, and the trial court ruled that the statements he subsequently made can be used to convict him. Advertisement.
In Davis, the suspect had told his interrogators: “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.”. No lawyer was provided, the interview continued, and the suspect made incriminating statements that were later used to secure his conviction. The Supreme Court held that none of this violated the Constitution.
Demesme appealed, arguing that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. A state appeals court held that they were not, and now the state Supreme Court has declined to review that judgment, with only Justice Jefferson Hughes III voting to take Demesme’s appeal.
The Supreme Court can forestall this constitutional subversion by taking Demesme’s case—presuming he appeals—and clarifying that a “reasonable police officer” may not deliberately ignore the intent of a suspect who colloquially but unequivocally asks for a lawyer.
He need only get the point across. Yet because Crichton refused to interpret Demesme’s words as a reasonable police officer surely would, he asserted that no constitutional violation occurred.
Heidi tells her lawyer that the drugs belonged to her , and that she bought them for the first time during a period of great stress in her life, just after she lost her job. Heidi authorizes her lawyer to reveal this information to the D.A., hoping to achieve a favorable plea bargain.
Example: Benny Wilson is charged with possession of stolen merchandise. The day after discussing the case with his lawyer, Benny discusses it with a neighbor. As long as Benny does not say something to his neighbor like, "Here's what I told my lawyer yesterday…," the attorney-client communications remain confidential.
Heidi's case goes to trial, and the prosecutor calls Heidi's mother as a witness and asks her to reveal what Heidi told her. Heidi's mother would likely have to answer questions under oath about what Heidi said to her. Most states have not created privileges for conversations between parents and children.
Defendants who bring strangers (people who are not part of the attorney-client relationship) into a meeting risk losing the right to claim that the meeting was confidential. This means that the D.A. might be able to ask the stranger or even the defendant about what was said during the meeting.
The most basic principle underlying the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyer-client communications are privileged, or confidential. This means that lawyers cannot reveal clients' oral or written statements (nor lawyers' own statements to clients) to anyone, including prosecutors, employers, friends, or family members, ...
Heidi authorized her lawyer to reveal her confidential statement to the D.A. But a statement made for the purpose of plea bargaining is also generally confidential, so the D.A. cannot refer to it at trial. Example: Same case. Soon after her arrest, Heidi speaks to her mother in jail.
Lawyer-client communications are confidential only if they are made in a context where it would be reasonable to expect that they would remain confidential. ( Katz v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 1967.)
In 1954, Joseph Welch took on Senator Joseph McCarthy -- and won. With just a few clear words, Welch gave voice to growing anti-McCarthy sentiment. McCarthy, who'd risen to prominence with an anti-communist "witch hunt" that became known as McCarthyism, had trained his eye on the U.S. Army.
The Army’s lawyer Joseph Welch then responded with the line that effectively ended McCarthy’s career and not long after, his life. “I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough.
He called the Army “soft” on communism and as the chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the Senate he began televised hearings on their perceived weakness. Unfortunately, for McCarthy “up to twenty million people watched McCarthy bully, evade, attack, and lie.”
Senator Joseph McCarthy’s legacy remains an embarrassing reminder of how high a morally bankrupt and self-serving person can rise before karma steps in. At least we can look to Joseph Welch and his declaration of “Have you no sense of decency?” and hope that there will always be a course correction when politics fly off the rails.
Unfortunately, for McCarthy “up to twenty million people watched McCarthy bully, evade, attack, and lie.”. If that wasn’t enough, McCarthy went to his old faithful playbook and accused one of the Army’s lawyers of having a connection with the Communist party.
An infamous picture of the younger aide, Roy Cohn, guiding his power hungry boss did McCarthy no favors. (findingdulcinea) McCarthy knew America’s dread of communism well and used it as a tool to gain power. Any opponents of his were labeled Communists or “egg-sucking liberals.”.
McCarthy’s Critical Mistake. As things do, the tide began to turn against McCarthy in 1954. Republican Dwight Eisenhower became President. And while McCarthy’s rantings of communists in government played well while Democratic President Truman was in power, it became a political problem for the Republican party under Eisenhower.
If Glen invokes his right to counsel while captive in jail and officers return several hours later and begin questioning him again, while he is still in jail, then they have violated Miranda. However, suppose Glen has been serving time in prison when officers first approach him.
If a detainee invokes the right to counsel for only a limited purpose, the police may interrogate "around" that purpose. For example, suppose that, after being Mirandized, Becky doesn't claim her Miranda rights and answers questions.
A suspect's assertion of the right to counsel ceases to apply if there is a break in incarceration. The assertion of the right doesn't carry over to the next detention. For example, assume Glen invokes his right to counsel and is released from custody.
If the suspect invokes the latter, questioning must cease until counsel is available. But if the detainee invokes only the right to remain silent, the police may reinitiate questioning at a later time, provided that they honor the right to remain silent. What it means to "honor" the right to remain silent after a suspect invokes it isn't always ...
Becky has invoked her right to counsel for the limited purpose of reviewing the statement—she hasn't invoked it generally. Thus, although the police must wait for her lawyer to be present to persist with the signature request, they may continue questioning her for as long as she is willing to speak with them.
There's no time limit for invoking Miranda rights. After receiving the warnings, a detainee may invoke the rights immediately or after answering some questions. Whenever that invocation occurs, the police must stop investigative questioning. But any statements preceding assertion of Miranda rights are likely to be admissible.