Where do you think all these ignorant low-life perps are supposed to find the money to pay a lawyer?
doesn’t matter - if they ask , they have to be provided a court appointed one (no idea how long that takes to happen in the real world)
There’s also another wrinkle - you’re not undergoing a custodial interrogation unless the cops are engaged in conduct reasonably anticipated to provoke an incriminating response. This can range from “CONFESS, YOU BASTARD,” to one cop telling another, in your earshot, “gee, I hope no kids find the murder weapon - they could be hurt!” However, if the cops aren’t asking you questions, or otherwise trying to provoke you to speak, then they aren’t interrogating you.
Why does this matter? Because you only need to be informed of your Miranda rights before a custodial interrogation takes place - it’s often done sooner, but it doesn’t have to be. So if the cops simply dump you in their car, start driving to the station, and you start speaking, unprompted, before you’ve been Mirandized - well, that’s probably admissible.
Keeping one’s mouth shut during a police interrogation can be a highly effective tactic.
Take some time to watch this 45 minute long law school class lecture .
Two people share the podium—a law professor and a police detective with years of experience with [del]interrogations[/del] interviews. They both tell you why you should never talk to the police, and what kind of tricks the police use .
You are paying in either money or time and generally the poor have neither to spare. A court provided lawyer is not simply saying ‘hey I can’t afford a lawyer’ You’ll also have to demonstrate that you can’t actually afford a lawyer. The bureaucracy involved could cost you your minimum wage job when you can’t call into work or have to miss work waiting around a police station. The pressure for someone who believes themselves to be innocent is to tell the cops what they want to hear so they can get on with their life. This doesn’t always work out well for that person.
People who are not innocent aren’t usually super smart, so the cops have an easier time convincing them to speak against their own interest.
If you can’t afford one, yes. But an attorney will not be appointed until you’ve been charged, which is generally well after the interrogation.
RNATB’s point is worth emphasizing. Suppose your wife/son/elderly father disappeared out of your home and has been missing for three days in the middle of winter. Your relationship means that you are almost certainly the primary suspect, at least at the outset, but are you really going to refuse to tell the police everything you know about the person’s last known location and plans?
Never talk to police? What a crappy world that would be if no one helped the police track down criminals. Never talk to them after committing a crime? Of course not! What kind of idiot does that?
Spontaneous utterances will be admissible before or after Miranda. Miranda only protects you during police interviews. It does not shield you from saying something stupid when not being questioned. Why would it?
Not to burst your bubble but First 48 is not 100% documentary. I know from personal experience they do reenactments.
It doesn’t matter how long. Once the request is made the interview stops.
Understand that rulings from SCOTUS are just a baseline. Individual states can have more stringent standards either based on state court precedent, statute or state attorney general guidelines. Here in my state any hint that a detective is offering a deal would get the interview and anything that came from the interview thrown out. Detectives or investigators can not make deals and can not falsely promise that they can.
In addition to the well-known law professor & detective talk video linked above, here is another good video on the same topic I like.
If you go to 8:00 - 9:28, what he says seems to be in contradiction to this:
I’m not sure of the quote is saying you simply have access to the interview record, or that what you said in the interview can indeed be A) brought up in court, and B) be of actual use to defend you. Going by what the lawyer in the video said, it can’t help you.
This was my point - sloppily made of course -
I assume there is some procedure for assisting/getting them an attorney for during the interview process.
That’s correct, and what I was trying to get at. Was also trying to explain that simply being in the custody of police does not mean you’re being questioned, and that there’s no obligation to inform suspects of their Miranda rights if they aren’t being questioned. Apologies for being unclear.
:: holds out left hand, examines skin tone ::
Not talking to the cops unless I called them, sorry.
If a police officer wishes to enter my home, the answer is “No, we can talk through the door.” If it is raining or snowing or flaming hailstones are falling like in The Ten Commandments, the answer is “Gosh, I’m sorry to have inconvenienced you, wish I could help, but no, you may not come in unless you have a warrant.” If a police officer says I need to come down to the station to clear things up, my response (uttered while I sitting down if we are in public, from behind my door if I’m at home," is “Am I under arrest? Nyet? Then I decline to go.” If the cop says I am not under arrest but she or he is ordering me to come in to answer questions, my answer is, “Well, that sounds like I’m in custody. Let me call Pat, my criminal defense lawyer friend, and she and I will be happy to meet you here or at his office. But I’m not saying anything until and unless she okays it. Here’s her card; the note on the back will explain everything.”
Of course it can. It depends on what is said. The prosecution does not have the ability to just present what they want and keep out exculpatory statements.
David Simon’s Homicide goes into this in some detail from the cops point of view. IIRC, anyone who says anything without a lawyer is dumb.
An excellent book. However depending on the jurisdiction, a lot has changed in 25 years.
Does it really? How often does it continue because the suspect can’t prove anything? What happens if it’s being taped and the police just decide to turn off the recorder?
The lawyers in both videos said that the prosecution can present what they want (against you), leave out certain info they gathered that makes you look good/innocent, and then gave examples of how for the most part you’d not be allowed to even bring it up and ask them about it in cross examination.
So they are not able to keep out information that makes you look good entirely, but they aren’t compelled to confirm you said X, Y, or Z good things during their questioning, even if they know you did. So you are left to present that info on your own, which may well come across as you just making up BS stories since you can’t get the police to verify it. The experts in both videos say that talking to police/detectives before seeing a lawyer can not possibly help you, and I’ve yet to see any refutation of this.
So, who played you on TV? 