Who is “indigent” for the purposes of a state-subsidized lawyer, and
What actually does guarantee you counsel for your criminal defense?
If you’re arrested, and the officer reads you the Miranda warnings, and you ask for an attorney, you do not necessarily get one right then. Miranda isn’t there to guarantee you a lawyer, but rather to guarantee you your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. Counterintuitive, I know. If you ask for a lawyer, what will (should) happen is that the officers simply stop questioning you, and can’t (shouldn’t) start again until they’ve provided you with one. Which might be days later. In this context, your Miranda rights have not been violated until a) you ask for a lawyer, b) you are denied one, c) the police (in a “coercive police environment”) ask you questions intended to elicit incriminating statements, d)you make such a statement, and finally, e) the prosecution attempts to enter that statement at trial. It doesn’t get you a lawyer: it just makes them stop asking you questions.
I have no idea. I assume it’s jurisdictional, and the others in the thread have answered that pretty nicely.
The case you’re really looking for is Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964). Basically, it holds that evidence from pretrial procedures (lineups, interrogations, etc) performed without an attorney (or a valid waiver of your rights) is inadmissible in court. It’s a 6th Amendment case. Your Massiah rights begin when you are indicted - not when you are arrested. Gideon v. Wainright, on the other hand, guarantees you counsel at trial.
While I appreciate that both of these comments were made in jest, I have to wonder where you guys grew up/live. I can count on one hand the number of my friends that don’t have some sort of criminal records. Will bar associations truly deny entrance because of an MIP charge or a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge?
I was in municipal court recently and when the judge told a young woman that she could go to jail for her DUI and asked if she had a lawyer she said “no I need a public defender”. The judge then said “why do you need a public defender, don’t you have a job?”. She said “no I don’t”. He asked her why not and she said it was because she was in school. The judge got upset and lectured her very sternly, telling her that it was her choice to go to school instead of getting a job and that it was not the tax payers responsibility to pay for her legal fees, and suggested she quickly get a job in order to pay her legal fees. This was in Kansas.
It seemed strange to me that he had that level of discretion.
I’ve had co-workers who were advised that they’d better pay off all their parking tickets, let alone deal with drug possession charges, if they wanted to be admitted to the bar. I don’t know all the details (I’m not a lawyer), but why risk it?
It should be noted that, in some jurisdictions, if a court appointed attorney negotiates a plea agreement and you plead guilty, you can be charged by the state for some of the attorney’s services. In other words, the guilty do not have legal rights which a worth defending under Miranda, even if they are indigent.
Yes. They fall under the heading of “offences of moral turpitude” and can be cause for denial. Read up on it, now.
Of course, it’s not your roommates’ offences I was really pointing to. I would be more worried about them being busted at home, and you get roped into the charge because nobody will admit the shit is theirs.
Not that it’s any of my business, but do you have a criminal record? Or a serious moving violation (reckless, exhibition of speed, etc)? You should research your state’s bar entrance requirements if you do…
When I got busted they told me I couldn’t make more than $12,000 a year and unless I was homeless, I had to also pay $50.00 to the state to “hire” the public defender.
That’s a horrible thing to hear; was the judge being serious or just ranting to make an impression? Can you actually be forced to quit school, forfeit scholarships, get booted out of residence, and take a crappy job in a dangerous neighborhood for fear of being denied legal council? How could a $10/hour job you just started possibly pay a $200/hr lawyer anyway, especially when your sudden rushed & unplanned life changes would likely leave you with even less money than your previous position? That case sounds like a grumpy judge who just wanted to nag rather than an actual legal order; it’s not thought out at all. It would be especially cruel if the girl did all that and was actually proven innocent.
The idea that you “chose” to be poor at this particular time in life and therefore don’t deserve a lawyer could be applied to anyone for any reason if a judge feels like it… it’s ridiculous. What difference does it make why you can’t afford a lawyer right now - isn’t it the fact that you simply can’t? What would happen if a person refuses to follow extreme “suggestions” like that and insists on a public defender anyways? “I need a lawyer immediately and I can prove I’m broke right now. I could get a job and save enough money over the next 6-8 months to get started, but my next court date is in 12 days; what now?” The judge quoted above does seem to be using too much discretion.
Just goes to show how different our world views are. I’m 43 years old and I don’t have a single friend or family member that has ever had anything worse than a speeding ticket. It’s simply not tolerated in my frame of reference. To each his own, but the feedback you are getting is real. We middle-aged, straight laced squares are just looking for a reason not to hire you.
It was definitely a bit of a rant but he gave her another court date and sent her away without a lawyer so it was serious as far as I can tell.
For the record the judge was very nice and reasonable and fatherly to almost every one else there, including the persons right before and after the female DUI student. So if he was grumpy and taking it out on the defendants he was able to limit his outbursts to two of the many many cases he presided over that evening. The other time he got upset was when two female co defendants in a drug case started cursing at each other and just about started to throw down as they were leaving the courtroom.
Exactly, especially since there were dozens of people there with public defenders, and it was fairly obvious that a fair number of them were in the circumstances they were in at least in part due to drug abuse, a personal choice, and one seemingly much less responsible than the choice to go to school.
One would think so, IANAL though, so I don’t know whether this judge was overstepping his authority or not.
As a simple empirical matter, you’re either wrong, extremely isolated, or highly exceptional. Unless you meant that their conviction of a crime isn’t “tolerated,” in which case I have no idea what you mean.
I’m not sure what you mean, now, either. In my circle, I can’t think of anyone who’s ever had any legal problems. In my family (not my circle), there’s only one person who’s ever had legal entanglements at all. In both cases, I’m excusing civil infractions such as speeding tickets. I don’t think this is at all exceptional or isolated. The vast majority of people in this society are law abiding.
Let’s separate two things. Violating the law, and being convicted of violating the law. All of you who state that no one in your close circle has been convicted of violating the law, I believe you.
But the previous poster didn’t seem to be talking about conviction, and it seems that neither are you with your statement that “the vast majority of people in this society are law abiding.” That statement is unequivocally false. More than 90% of high school seniors admit to underage drinking, for example. And well more than half have used illegal drugs. White, middle-class people don’t get in trouble for those things very often, but that doesn’t make them less illegal.
I hate to bring this to a childish level, but I feel I have to. “It’s not illegal unless you get caught.” While that’s not legally true, there’s a high tolerance for “victimless crimes.” Note that I excused “civil infractions” and the like. While possession of cocaine, for example, goes beyond civil infraction, as long as one is a responsible member of society, you’re highly unlikely to get busted for such. You’re only likely to get busted if you’ve done something stupid and compounded the problem, like, say, tried to sell to an undercover officer in order to support your habit.
So you’re right – in a strict sense the majority aren’t law-abiding. Close to 100% on area freeways aren’t, for example. On the other hand, I did mention “legal entanglements,” so we’re back to victimless crimes, or crimes that no one cares about, until you do something extra and beyond that makes them care about it.
Every bar I’ve ever considered applying to has a “character and fitness” requirement. When you apply for admission, you have to fill out a very lengthy and detailed application. Mine was more intrusive than the ones I’d previously filled out for a security clearance in the military. You have to provide finger prints, and details of any criminal or civil litigation where you were a party (plus a ton of other info). Any criminal charge beyond minor traffic tickets means at the very least you’ll have to explain in full, and probably have to appear in person before an ethics panel. A felony conviction means you probably aren’t getting admitted without powerful evidence of rehabilitation.
I was initially responding to the claim that, unlike vinniepaz whose friends have gotten in trouble for drugs, most people don’t have any friends or family who break non-traffic laws.
