Inspired by this thread about waiving your rights, if I call somebody from jail to request an attorney, can that conversation be used against me in court?
Example:
Me: (dialing the old man) “Hi dad, happy birthday! I’m in jail! Can you call a lawyer?”
Dad: “Jail, like wtfomg, what did you do?”
Me: “Stole a car.” or “They said I stole a car.” or “I’m in jail for stealing a car.”
Given the three responses above, the first seems very incriminating, the second seems very un-incriminating, and the third I think a prosecutor could warp to make it incriminating. That is, if this phone call is admissible.
If one calls their lawyer instead of somebody else, is that immediately a confidential conversation (not counting other people in jail who may hear your end of the conversation)?
A call to your attorney is privileged. A call to your dad may not be. I seem to recall having two cops in the room when I used my one call to call my dad, and I was on speaker…
A call to your dad is absolutely not privileged (unless he also happens to be your attorney). You should also be leery of talking to your attorney over the phone. While it is supposed to be confidential most calls are recorded or monitored and it is not unheard of for cops to glean information from those supposedly confidential conversations to further their investigation. Granted your attorney can make a motion to exclude such illegally gathered information but proving or even knowing they did it is tough. Most attorneys will tell you not to discuss your case over the phone with anyone. If they need to discuss the case they should come see you.
In my city, the DA actually left on a recorder ‘accidentally’ after interviewing one suspect and tried to include the recording of the next conversation between lawyer and client in the same room. He claimed something like a ‘good faith’ accident. In short, you can’t be too careful.
Another neat trick they use is the inevitable discovery doctrine, that is where they convince some patsy of a judge (who was probably a DA before he was a judge) to let them use illegally obtained evidence because you see they would have inevitably discovered it legally if they hadn’t already discovered it illegally. How’s that for going thru the looking glass?