Assuming that a defendant's decision is neither unethical nor illegal ("My decision is that you should bump off the prosecution witness"), the lawyer is the defendant's agent and must either carry out the defendant's decision or convince the judge to let him withdraw from the case.
Here, the defendant and the attorney should readily identify at least three possible options: refuse to plead guilty and go to trial. Before making a decision, the defendant and attorney should discuss the likely consequences of each option. For example, the defendant may ask questions such as
Defendants should ask questions to make sure that they understand the advice and why the lawyers think it's in their best interests before making a decision. Example: Randy is charged with aggravated assault, and has insisted to his lawyer that he struck the alleged victim in self-defense.
The plaintiff may be able to arrange for service on someone living with the defendant, or they may be able to publish notice of the lawsuit in a newspaper if the defendant cannot be found.
Gideon v. WainwrightWhen the Supreme Court first recognized a constitutional right to counsel in 1963 in its landmark ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, the justices did not require states to provide any particular remedy or procedure to guarantee that indigent defendants could fully exercise that right.
Wainwright is responsible for changing the criminal justice system by granting criminal defendants the right to an attorney, even if they can't afford one on their own.
As a general matter people are entitled to counsel from the time of arraignment until the end of a trial. The right begins before the trial itself because courts have acknowledged that early events are critical to the criminal proceeding as a whole.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons accused of felonies have a fundamental Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one.
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
OHIO, decided on 20 June 1961, was a landmark court case originating in Cleveland, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 4th and 14th Constitutional amendments, illegally seized evidence could not be used in a state criminal trial.
According to the Supreme Court, under what circumstances does a defendant have a Constitutional right to choose a different privately hired attorney? Defendant can choose a new attorney for almost any reason. "Very distrustful" of their lawyers.
The case that established that defendants have a right to represent themselves was Faretta v. California, U.S. Sup. Ct. 1975. The Faretta case said that a judge must allow self-representation if a defendant is competent to understand and participate in the court proceedings.
A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the government initiates adversarial criminal proceedings, whether by way of formal charge, PRELIMINARY HEARING, indictment, information, or ARRAIGNMENT (United States v. Larkin, 978 F.
DECISIONS PRESENTED INCLUDE 'GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT' (1963), 'GRIFFIN V. CALIFORNIA' (1965), AND 'KATZ V. UNITED STATES' (1967).
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves.
Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment.
Judges are often asked to continue a hearing or a trial for these reasons: 1. At arraignment, to secure counsel. An arrestee’s first court appearan...
Prosecutors must bring a case to trial within the speedy trial window unless the defendant has waived time. If the defendant refuses to waive time...
Judges are normally very careful to document the evidence offered in support of the motion for a continuance, and their reasons for granting or den...
1. I’ve waived time and need more time to prepare my case. What do I have to tell the judge to get the trial date pushed back? 2. If the prosecutor...
When they’ve denied a motion by the defense or prosecutor, do either have recourse?
Questions for Your Attorney 1 I’ve waived time and need more time to prepare my case. What do I have to tell the judge to get the trial date pushed back? 2 If the prosecutor asks for a continuance and gets it, can I challenge the delay by filing a writ in the appellate court? 3 I’d like to hire new counsel because I think the one I have is not doing a good job. What do I have to tell the judge to get time for finding a new lawyer?
Occasionally, defendants will ask for a continuance on the grounds of prejudicial publicity. Whether that motion will be granted depends on the facts of each case. Typically, judges will inquire as to how widespread and negative the publicity actually is; whether a change of venue (to another location within the court system) will solve the problem; whether questioning potential jurors about their exposure will result in a taint-free jury; and whether admonishing the jury to disregard such publicity, or even sequestering them, will alleviate the effects. Often, the effect of pretrial publicity can be mitigated using one or more of these approaches.
To prepare for trial. States typically provide defendants with a minimum amount of time between entering the plea and going to trial. But a defendant has a right to adequately prepare defense (which includes the right of counsel to prepare).
Similarly, defendants who are without counsel but facing a preliminary hearing are often given a continuance to hire a lawyer (a preliminary hearing is a “mini-trial,” in which the prosecutor presents enough evidence to convince the judge that “there’s a case here,” and that the matter should be set for trial).
Speedy Trial Rights and Requirements. For the reasons above, speedy trials are required by statute in most states, which set “speedy trial” windows. Defendants can give up these speedy trial protections by “waiving time,” but even when they do, continuances are explicitly disfavored. In spite of this general approach, ...
Asking for a continuance on the grounds that the prosecutor is not prepared is typically a non-starter.
Sometimes, such as capital cases, a good relationship between an attorney and client is a matter of life and death. In many other instances, the course of the rest of a defendant's life could be in jeopardy pending the results of a given criminal case. Numerous legal, ethical, and professional obligations must be met by criminal defense attorneys when dealing with their clients. Among the most commonly cited concerns from defendants regarding their attorney include matters of confidentiality, the decision making process, and how to deal with a guilty client.
Additionally, an attorney must accurately inform clients of all potential alternatives or negotiations that may result in a better plea deal or a favorable outcome at trial. Clients should never immediately accept a plea deal offered from the prosecutor via their attorney without first having their attorney accurately assess all alternatives, potential consequences, and long-term future ramifications of each alternative.
Lawyers are ethically required to involve their clients in all major decisions during the course of a criminal case. At the very least, you are required to consult with your attorney before making any of the following decisions, including:
Even if a client confesses their guilt to an attorney, the attorney is ethically obligated to task the government with proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a given crime. In other instances, an attorney and client may elect to acknowledge guilt of certain crimes and go to trial seeking a more lenient sentence ...
Plea Bargaining and other Fundamental Disputes. Unless otherwise illegal or unethical, an attorney will submit to the decisions made by their client. In some events, such as plea bargaining agreements, an attorney and client will not be able to agree on accepting or going to trial, which is a fundamental dispute.
Among the most commonly cited concerns from defendants regarding their attorney include matters of confidentiality, the decision making process, and how to deal with a guilty client.
Appealing an verdict. Depending on how involved you want to be in your own defense, outline your intents before entering into an attorney-client agreement. Additionally, remain vocal about hearing all potential ramifications to any decision, as well as all possible alternatives.
U.S. (512 U.S. 453 (1994).) The Court noted that if a suspect invokes the right to counsel at any time, the police must at once stop the questioning until a lawyer is present. (A suspect can also invoke the right to remain silent—see Is post-arrest silence enough to stop police questioning?) But the Court also said that, after a suspect waives the Miranda rights, officers may continue asking questions until the suspect makes a clear request for a lawyer.
U.S. (512 U.S. 453 (1994).) The Court noted that if a suspect invokes the right to counsel at any time, the police must at once stop the questioning until a lawyer is present. (A suspect can also invoke the right to remain silent—see Is post-arrest silence enough to stop police questioning?) But the Court also said that, after a suspect waives the Miranda rights, officers may continue asking questions until the suspect makes a clear request for a lawyer.
The Supreme Court has the final say on the federal Constitution, but states may read their own constitutions to provide defendants more rights. That means that the law can vary somewhat depending on where your case is. Differences in the law make for one of many reasons to talk to a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney if you've been arrested.
But the Court also said that, after a suspect waives the Miranda rights, officers may continue asking questions until the suspect makes a clear request for a lawyer. If the comment is ambiguous—if a reasonable officer would interpret it as a potential request for a lawyer—then the police can continue interrogating.
Quite the contrary, he is absolutely entitled to speak directly with your attorney. In fact, if he was represented by counsel then the lawyers could only speak to the parties by consent
If your husband is represented by an attorney, YOUR attorney is not permitted to communicate with your husband, unless your husband initiates the communication himself (and even then most lawyers won't endulge the individual and will tell them to have their attorney contact them) If your husband is unrepresented; then he may contact your attorney and deal with him directly, as you have chosen your attorney...
If he is represented by counsel he may speak to your attorney. Even if he was not, while inadvisable, it is permissible. The only time attorneys are precluded from talking with parties is when it is in the scope of the representation, initiated by the attorney, and the party with whom he speaks is represented by counsel.#N#More
The Court further instructed the police that if a suspect says he wants a lawyer, the police must cease any interrogation or questioning until an attorney is present. Further, the police must give the suspect an opportunity to confer with his attorney and to have the attorney present during any subsequent questioning.
All the police need to arrest a person is probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime. Probable cause is merely an adequate reason based on the facts or events. Police are required to read or give suspects their Miranda warnings only before questioning a suspect.
The right to have counsel present at a custodial interrogation is necessary to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A suspect detained for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.
The Miranda Case and the Right to Counsel. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court's Miranda v. Arizona ruling ushered in a period of court-imposed restraints on the government's ability to interrogate suspects it takes into custody. This decision focused on Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, but it also spoke to the right to counsel.
If you're detained by police and interrogated, you have the right to not say anything as well as the right to counsel. If your request is denied or ignored, and the police continue questioning you, then they're violating your rights. Reach out to a local criminal defense attorney to learn more and discuss your specific situation.
Police are allowed to ask certain questions without reading the Miranda rights, including the following: Police can also give alcohol and drug tests without Miranda warnings, but individuals being tested may refuse to answer questions.
Individuals need to remember that they can be arrested without being advised of their Miranda rights, whether it's the right to remain silent or the right to counsel. The Miranda rights don't protect individuals from being arrested, but they help suspects keep from unwittingly incriminating themselves during police questioning.
Most commonly, a plaintiff will seek monetary damages to compensate them for the harm caused by the defendant’s actions. However, there are also situations in which a plaintiff will ask a court to issue an injunction. This orders the defendant to do something or refrain from doing something.
The plaintiff also should address jurisdictional requirements. If you are bringing the case in a federal court, for example, the complaint should explain why the federal court has the authority to hear it.
The summons will provide the defendant with basic background information about the case and where it is being brought. It also will notify the defendant of the deadline for filing an answer and warn the defendant that the court will enter a default judgment against them if they do not file an answer.
Putting Together a Complaint. The complaint will need to comply with the specific rules of the court in which you are filing it. It must carefully lay out the defendant’s actions and explain how they caused harm to the plaintiff or infringed on the plaintiff’s legal rights. The plaintiff also will need to ask for a certain remedy or combination ...
This creates a two-way lawsuit in which either or both sides can receive a remedy from the other. A plaintiff responding to a counterclaim must follow similar rules to a defendant answering a complaint. Whether an argument should be raised as a defense or a counterclaim will depend on the factual circumstances and the law governing the case.
Only certain courts will have jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear a case and make a binding judgment. Jurisdictional rules can be very specific, but generally the defendant must have some connection to the state in which you are filing the case. In some cases, a plaintiff can file a lawsuit in federal court instead of state court, ...
Serving the Complaint. Usually, the plaintiff will attach the complaint to another document known as a summons. An officer of the court will deliver the complaint and the summons to the defendant. This step is formally known as service of process. The summons will provide the defendant with basic background information about ...
When lawyers and defendants can't agree about an issue as fundamental as whether to go to trial, it's normally the defendant's desire that prevails. Assuming that a defendant's decision is neither unethical nor illegal ("My decision is that you should bump off the prosecution witness"), the lawyer is the defendant's agent and must either carry out the defendant's decision or convince the judge to let him withdraw from the case.
The defendant objected to the lawyer telling the jury that he committed the acts in question and, when testifying, claimed that he was innocent. At the trial's penalty phase, the lawyer again acknowledged his client's guilt but asked for mercy in light of the man's mental and emotional issues.
To enforce this right, defense attorneys are ethically required to: relay the prosecutor's offer to accept a particular plea to their client.
One day, Randy's lawyer phones him to say that he's worked out a good deal with the prosecutor: If Randy pleads guilty (or nolo contendere) to simple assault, the prosecutor will recommend that Randy be given a sentence of time served (the jail time he already served while waiting to make bail), and a small fine.
Before making an important decision, a defendant is entitled to know what alternatives are reasonably available and, as far as can be predicted, the likely consequences of each. For example, assume that the defendant is charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The defense attorney tells the defendant, "The prosecutor is willing to accept a guilty plea to simple assault and recommend a sentence of six months in county jail and a fine of $500. The decision is yours—what do you want to do?"
The Court explained that the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant's right to "the Assistance of Counsel for his defence," means that someone facing charges gets to choose the defense's objective. The Court said that lawyers are entitled to make certain decisions about how to defend their clients, but not when it comes to this kind of "fundamental choice" about the defense.
relay the prosecutor's offer to accept a particular plea to their client. It doesn't matter if the defense attorney believes that the defendant's offer won't be accepted or the prosecutor's offer is unacceptable.