The United States Supreme Court held that once an individual is brought before a magistrate at an initial appearance, the right to court-appointed counsel attaches. "A criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel."
This ruling has an impact upon police interrogations since all questions must stop once an attorney is requested and not resume except in the presence of the attorney.
Since past Supreme Court holdings have required that an individual clearly ask for an attorney, no "maybe I need an attorney" or other unequivocal statements will do, the question of whether magistrates now will ask if the person wants appointed counsel as part of the initial appearance remains unanswered.
Miranda Warnings include the proviso that you have the right to have an attorney present and if you cannot afford one, the state will provide one for you. The warnings require that the individual be asked if he/she understand the rights. They do not require police to ask if a person wants an attorney. Now the Court says the right to an attorney attaches at the first appearance before a magistrate.
Do you think that a magistrate should be required to specifically ask the suspect if an attorney is desired?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment