Saw this one on a cop show. Don’t remember which one and probably isn’t important.
Suspect is in interrogation and utters the magic words, “I want a lawyer.” One of the ADA’s was watching from behind the mirror walks into the room and tosses her card onto the table face down and sits down beside the suspect. He then goes on to say something incriminating and then she goes on to identify herself as ADA Smith or whatever her name was. He complains of course and she points out that she never claimed to be his lawyer.
I’m pretty sure that whatever he had said would be inadmissable and she would probably be facing a fine or other sanctions. No?
Plus, IIRC, if he says “I want a lawyer” and they keep interrogating, that’s supposedly inadmissible, no matter who’s sitting beside him. This is just stupid on so many levels. Making him think she’s a lawyer is pretty stupid - but then so’s the whole show. the whole point of the lawyer is they will tell you when to answer a question. There’s nothing magical about a lawyer sitting beside you if you utter incriminating information. If the guy in this show is a career criminal you’d think he knew this.
But there is something special about talking to your lawyer (even if you utter incriminating information). The whole point is the ADA made him think she was his lawyer (even if she never said it explicitly, that’s clearly what she was trying to make him think). Which is why what he said to her would get tossed from evidence, rather than the judge saying “Oh, too bad Mister Defendent, you should learn to keep your mouth shut”.
Oh, sorry, I thought it meant she sat beside him and the police continued to interrogate him.
Yeah, if she acted out what would look like “I’m your lawyer” then I would say it’s deliberate deception.
presenting a business card but deliberately hiding the information on it is deceptive; leaving the impression is deceptive. If she said anything at all then she’s essentially continuing the interrogation after he’s asked for a lawyer, so even if she doesn’t get disbarred, the evidence should be inadmissible and then also they have to make sure what he told them doesn’t taint future evidence. If he blurted out the evidence without prodding or questions, he’s pretty stupid but she’s probably still deceptive.
Note that statements from a suspect sometimes CAN be used against them, even after asking for a lawyer. I think this has been touched upon, but as long as the police don’t continue questioning, a “spontaneous admission” can still be used.