The law says that if someone makes a blanket request for counsel during questioning, they’re entitled to stop talking until their lawyer is present. There’s no requirement that the police allow them time to make such a request. If the police refuse, though, the defendant can challenge the decision at trial.
Full Answer
Once a suspect asks to speak to a lawyer that is an unequivocal invocation of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. And it must be respected.
Once the suspect has clearly invoked the right to legal counsel, all interrogation must immediately stop, unless the suspect reinitiates conversation, as the court found Medina to have done. On the other hand, when a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, officers may attempt to interrogate the suspect at a later time.
If you ask for the assistance of counsel, questioning will stop. If the police have sufficient probable cause to hold you, you will be booked into jail or returned to jail if you’ve already been booked. If the police do not have sufficient probable cause, you will be released.
Since the prosecution bears the burden of showing the suspect wanted to talk about the crime, officers should generally ask clarifying questions when a suspect indicates a desire to speak with them. Medina argued he merely began a routine conversation about something unrelated to the murder.
If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions. Three days later, the detectives interviewed Medina again.
An explicit request for an attorney requires all questioning to cease. If the suspect makes an ambiguous or equivocal statement concerning the right to legal counsel following an unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel, the officer does not need to stop and ask clarifying questions.
96 (1975)), the Supreme Court allowed a second interrogation after the suspect had invoked the right to remain silent upon consideration of four factors: The interrogation immediately ceased when the defendant said he did not want to talk anymore.
Though commendable, the reminder was constitutionally unnecessary. In Maryland v. Shatzer (559 U.S. 98 (2010)), the Supreme Court held officers need not give renewed Miranda warnings during subsequent interrogations unless 14 days had passed since a break in custody and an effective initial Miranda warning.
Medina argued he merely began a routine conversation about something unrelated to the murder. The court acknowledged truly routine conversation about an unrelated topic would not signal a suspect’s desire to talk about the murder. However, the court disagreed that Medina’s conversation was more than just routine or unrelated to the crimes charged. When Medina invoked his right to an attorney in the first interrogation, he immediately followed with:
Medina asked the court to suppress the statements obtained during the two interrogations, claiming detectives continued to question him after he plainly invoked his right to an attorney during the initial questioning. The trial court agreed and granted his request; the state appealed.
If you spontaneously or voluntarily speak without being questioned, your words can be used against you. Not only is it good to ask for an attorney, but you should also stop speaking until you have a chance to consult with an attorney on your case.
Can the police question me once I ask for an attorney? Police are required to stop their interrogation at the time you ask for an attorney, and cannot question you further until you have an attorney present. You must clearly communicate that you are asking for an attorney and that you do not wish to be questioned anymore.
Although asking for an attorney requires officers to cease questioning you, they may still arrest you if they think you have committed a crime or they have enough reason to believe you have committed a crime. If you spontaneously or voluntarily speak without being questioned, your words can be used against you.
If the police pull you over because they believe you are driving under the influence (DUI), you may feel like you need to ask to talk to your attorney. In the U.S., though, most states do not have a law that says you may talk to a lawyer just because you have been pulled over to be questioned by the police. Technically, you are not in police ...
It is important to be aware of what raises reasonable cause for the police to pull you over on suspicion of driving under the influence. They may pull you over, question you and administer tests to determine intoxication if they see you doing the following:
Police may pull you over for any reasonable suspicion of intoxicated driving. They may also pull you over for other issues with your car, such as having a taillight out. This information is important because if a police officer pulls you over without reasonable suspicion, it may get your DUI case thrown out.
The standard of probable cause differs from reasonable suspicion, in that it means the police find at this point that it is likely that you have committed the crime of driving under the influence.
If you refuse, the police will likely ask you to take a test to determine your level of intoxication or your Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). Police may also use other cues to assume intoxication, such as the dilation of your pupils.
If the officer does have reasonable suspicion that you were driving under the influence, you will be arrested and transported to the police station or a hospital for a blood, breath, or urine test. Upon arrest, the police must read you your Miranda rights, reminding you that you do not have to say anything that may be used against you.
The breathalyzer test, or blood or urine test to determine level of intoxication may be voluntary, but, typically, you may still be arrested and charged with drunk driving for refusal to allow the test. In some cases, forced BAC tests may be done, especially if the driver under suspicion is injured and refuses a test.
If a lawyer knows their client is guilty, it really shouldn't change anything. They will act in the interest of society as well (to a certain extent):
Sometimes everyone knows that the client is guilty, because incontrovertible evidence was found using illegal methods. Such evidence may not be used, and a jury must ignore it. Judge, prosecutor, police, jury and lawyer may all know that the client is guilty and the client can still go free.
There is a big difference between knowing something and proving it. A lawyer who knows a client is guilty can take steps to prevent the state from proving guilt. (E.g., motion to exclude evidence, cross examining witnesses.)
Perjury is when you lie while testifying under oath. The defendant's lawyer will not be called to testify. At no point will the defense lawyer be asked if his client committed the crime, so he is not forced to lie.
Almost all police lie about whether they violated the constitution in order to convict guilty defendants.
If the evidence is dismissed, the prosecutor could decide not to press the matter cause they have to prove that the accused was in possession of evidence that he cannot show the jury. Conversely, a defense lawyer might strongly recomend that his client take a deal in order to minimize jail time.
Approximately 95% of people charged with crimes will plea guilty or be found guilty at trial.