Only Liberals do stupid illegal shit

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I have heard the best way to ask someone else what they are in for, is to say "What are you accused of?" instead of what did you do or what were you found guilty of.

I like the scene on the movie "The Shawshank Redemption" where Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are talking out in the prison yard, and Robbins says he didn't do it. Freeman responds that "Everyone in here is innocent," and then asks the guy he is playing catch with what he's in for. The guy responds "Didn't do it; lawyer fucked me!"

Oooh, found it on Youtube, at 45 second mark!

hs

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Could it have been his ties to the Congresswoman? That would be my guess. As far as his claim he was without a lawyer for 28 hours...prove it criminal.

This is impossible to prove...

Maybe he should prove he's innocent too?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

Technically, it means immediately. They cannot continue to question you unless they provide you with counsel, and if they don't provide you with counsel and continue questioning you, anything they elicit from you can be suppressed at trial via the exclusionary rule so long as you do not waive your right to an attorney.

Additionally, the government must bring charges against you promptly. If they fail to bring charges, you must be released (which I am sure you know). But, as soon as they do bring those charges, an attorney will be appointed if you do not already have one.

So, in answer to your question, the time-frame may not be precise, but it is not very long and if the police violate criminal procedure, then they do so at the peril of their own investigation.

But you're not answering the real question. We know about the whole "police can't continue questioning when he asks for a lawyer" thing...which isn't really ALWAYS true to begin with as seen below....there are some exceptions to the varying rules...

Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning | Reuters


The question is: How long can they take to get your lawyer once you ask for it? There's no real answer set in stone that I know of. All I have ever seen or heard is the verbiage "reasonable amount of time" which could mean anything.

So dipshit claiming they kept him from his lawyer for 28 hours really doesn't mean shit.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So dipshit claiming they kept him from his lawyer for 28 hours really doesn't mean shit.

I agree. 28 hours isn't excessive especially since they found him red handed breaking into a government building. If the case was just hear-say I would think keeping him in jail for 28 hours without council might be excessive.

[The Esteemed Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The question is: How long can they take to get your lawyer once you ask for it? There's no real answer set in stone that I know of. All I have ever seen or heard is the verbiage "reasonable amount of time" which could mean anything. So dipshit claiming they kept him from his lawyer for 28 hours really doesn't mean shit.

First, the case you cited only says that the old rule, which stipulated that once right to counsel was invoked only the suspect or his attorney could initiate a dialogue with the government, has been done away with to allow the government to also initiate that dialogue. It doesn't speak to the police being able to keep a lawyer from a requesting suspect. In fact, the article says specifically that the decision "does not change the landmark 1966 ruling barring the police from questioning a suspect who invoked the right to remain silent or have a lawyer present."

Second, I dug into a couple hornbooks, but still couldn't find a specific answer to your question. So I asked my crimpro prof, and the answer to your question is that they don't have to give him a lawyer if he asks for one unless they plan on continuing to interrogate him, or they bring him before a judge for an arraignment or other preliminary hearing of some sort.

Thus, if they don't plan on charging him or questioning him, they don't have to give him an attorney. They can keep him detained without one for the proscribed period allowed by law until they are forced to release him for lack of charges, which obviously varies by jurisdiction, but is never a very long time. Usually suspects are arraigned or brought before a magistrate by the next business day (which would trigger counsel), and if they are not they have to be released.

So, you're basically right when you said "dipshit claiming they kept him from his lawyer for 28 hours really doesn't mean shit."

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by The Esteemed Gentleman

First, the case you cited only says that the old rule, which stipulated that once right to counsel was invoked only the suspect or his attorney could initiate a dialogue with the government, has been done away with to allow the government to also initiate that dialogue. It doesn't speak to the police being able to keep a lawyer from a requesting suspect. In fact, the article says specifically that the decision "does not change the landmark 1966 ruling barring the police from questioning a suspect who invoked the right to remain silent or have a lawyer present."

Second, I dug into a couple hornbooks, but still couldn't find a specific answer to your question. So I asked my crimpro prof, and the answer to your question is that they don't have to give him a lawyer if he asks for one unless they plan on continuing to interrogate him, or they bring him before a judge for an arraignment or other preliminary hearing of some sort.

Thus, if they don't plan on charging him or questioning him, they don't have to give him an attorney. They can keep him detained without one for the proscribed period allowed by law until they are forced to release him for lack of charges, which obviously varies by jurisdiction, but is never a very long time. Usually suspects are arraigned or brought before a magistrate by the next business day (which would trigger counsel), and if they are not they have to be released.

So, you're basically right when you said "dipshit claiming they kept him from his lawyer for 28 hours really doesn't mean shit."

All those words just to tell me "you're right".

But good job on the research.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

All those words just to tell me "you're right".

But good job on the research.

It's interesting though. I really never thought about that kind if situation before. And you're not right that often so it's good to see it in writing