Say here in the US, somebody is taken by the police to be questioned, but the person refuses to talk unless their lawyer is present; however, they don’t have their own lawyer. What happens next?
I’ve heard that if you can’t afford it, you get assigned a public defender. But what if you can afford your own lawyer? Do the cops wait until you, or a friend, or family member, call around and hire a lawyer, or for the sake of expediency, if you ask for a lawyer, but don’t already have one, do you just get assigned a public defender anyway?
You always have the right not to say anything at all, and in fact it’s what you should do.
So in that scenario either the cops charge you with something or they have to let you go. If they charge you then you can have access to a public defender, or you will likely have to wait in a cell for your lawyer to get there. I believe you have to be given the opportunity to contact him/her or a family member.
If they don’t charge you and you still want to issue a statement to them through your lawyer, well, you’re free to go so you can just go to his office and discuss things.
That’s exactly what happens, you wait. And guess where you MIGHT have t wait. In that jail cell next to thugs, murders, prostitutes, drug dealers and other such nice people who would just LOVE to thump the hell out of you.
So a lot of people will talk rather than wait.
I doubt they would just assign you a lawyer, because the public defender is for people who can’t pay, not for people who rather not pay. So the person questioned could come back and say he wasn’t represented correctly at the questioning.
It’s a lot easier to expedite the thing by throwing you in the jail cell to wait and making a “deal” with a few of the other alledge criminals to persuade you into talking. You know something like the cops saying “See that guy we need him to talk, perhaps if you help us to achieve that goal the DA would be willing to work with you.”
I’m not saying that what Markxxx mentions above never happens, but I doubt it’s a systemic problem. I don’t think you have to worry about the cops paying off other people in the cell to hurt you. Not unless you are dealing with some seriously corrupt officers and you’ve pissed them off in some way. In that case, unfortunately your SOL. Which is why we have to remain vigilant and make sure our police stations are being run competently, professionally and without corruption. Because if cops get it in their head to get rid of someone, you pretty much have to get extremely lucky to both survive, and for justice to be served. the laws and the power are clearly on their side whether they are doing good (which the vast majority are) or evil.
You are probably going to be held at the police station also, they are not going to throw you in a pen right away.
Well, that and a lawyer is very unlikely to encourage the suspect to submit to questioning. So you ask for a lawer and the lawyer tells you to keep your mouth shut.
You are confined until your bail hearing. Your request for a lawyer simply means the cops can’t talk to you.
If you’ve been arrested, then you’re entitled to an arraignment. This is simply when the court informs you of the charges against you. At this time, the court will inquire about your representation and determine if you qualify for a public defender.
Jailhouse snitches are an ever-present threat when one’s in prison. Needless to say, one should never ever trust that sympathetic guy in the same cell who seems to be so understanding and a good listener. The problem is these snitches will often invent things if you prove stubbornly reticent. Of course, you’ll deny it in court and say he made the whole thing up, but then you would say that, wouldn’t you?
I know **Bricker **knows this, but for those who don’t, technically the cops *can *still talk to you. If they do, the prosecutor can’t use your statements in it’s case in chief. The statements can be used for other purposes, like impeachment, and physical fruits of the statement are admissible in evidence. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1183.ZO.html
It’s not a violation of your constitutional rights for the police to question you without advising you of your Miranda rights–the violation occurs only if the prosecutor tries to make his case based on your unwarned statements, your lawyer objects, and the court lets those statements in anyway.
OK, so, if I’m understanding correctly
You’re brought in for questioning.
You say you won’t talk without a lawyer present, but you currently don’t have one.
The cops either let you go, or hold you until you’re arraigned. At that point you get to hire a lawyer.
And in case anybody is wondering, no, I’m not in any legal trouble. I’m just curious.
If you don’t have an attorney by the arraignment (which most people don’t because is on average 24 hours after your arrest in NYC and less in the Long Island Court I have been observing in) then Legal Aid/Public Defender will stand up for you, even if you can afford an attorney. There is no charge to you. Once the judge makes the determination of whether you are/are not entitled to a public defender, you will have to follow that going forward.
Umm, not nessesarily, Bricker, I think you read the OP wrong, or maybe I am reading your answer wrong. He asked “…*somebody is taken by the police to be questioned…”. *You may also ask “Am I free to go?” They may not have enough evidence against you to hold you.
To answer the Op: my freind, a Judge, and the ACLU both say the same thing- when they read you your rights, STFU, and say only two things:
They have to have enough evidence to hold you. The police just can’t toss you into a cell hoping you’ll talk. In fact, you should STFU and not try and talk your way out of it, as it is far more likely you’ll talk your way into jail.
Not true. Anyone can use a public defender, those that can afford to pay will be required to pay. One of the first things a PD does when meeting a potential client is have them fill out an income and asset declaration, the amount you pay will depend on the numbers on the form. My SIL works for the PD’s office in the largest county in the state of Washington.
According to the Wikipedia page on hearsay in the US, admissions of guilt are listed under the heading “Hearsay exceptions that apply only where the declarant is unavailable”. I take that to mean that it would only be admissible if person B were unavailable for comment. Is my understanding incorrect (or is Wikipedia incomplete)?