Custody is supposed to mean that law enforcement officers have deprived a person of their freedom of action in any significant way. A person is in custody when a reasonable person in the person’s position would believe that he is in custody or is not free to leave. But when a bunch of old, white, ex-prosecutor judges apply this standard, it gets really dicey. /2
Juvenile aggressively questioned in his bedroom by cops who demanded that he agree with their “sympathetic” version of incident
Person handcuffed and held in police cruiser for "threshold inquiry" and asked what she was doing in the bushes next to a store that had just been robbed
Person showed up at police station after hearing co-defendant had implicated him
THESE THINGS ARE WAY TOO TRICKY TO NAVIGATE ON YOUR OWN.
As with every #STFUfriday post, I'm a lawyer in the USA. These comments are based on law in the USA. (And they apply to all people in the USA, whether or not they are citizens.) Some US states provide more protections than this. /END
Indigent people that are being subject to custodial interrogation are entitled to counsel at the government’s expense (prior to charge, based on the Fifth Amendment).
I was under the impression that that counsel is extremely overworked, spends less than five minutes with each defendant, and is in no way prepared to actually defend the defendant at an actual trial.
Also, if you're not indigent, you don't qualify for government-provided counsel, and legal fees will make you indigent. Then you win your case and lose your house.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is all very frightening to me, so I would very much like to be wrong.
As someone who worked for a long time on the other side of the v, I wholeheartedly endorse this. Those folks are dedicated and excellent lawyers with courtroom experience.
Add comment