A trope mainly seen on the Law & Order shows, which do take quite a few "liberties." The cops are interviewing or interrogating a suspect, are often seemingly very close to getting a confession out of him or her, the suspect had not previously asked for a lawyer, but then a lawyer (often a recurring character) suddenly barges in and declares (words varying only slightly), "___ for the defense. This interview/interrogation is over," whereupon the cops discontinue the questioning immediately. Is that a real thing? I would think asking for a lawyer would have to be specifically invoked. Also, who tipped off the lawyer if the suspect didn't?

As long as Miranda has been given you are presumed to know your rights, and anything can be asked, it's up to you to take the 5th....

Imagine lots of folks don't comprehend that in todays world cameras on police record everything you say...

It makes for good tv.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
As long as Miranda has been given you are presumed to know your rights, and anything can be asked, it's up to you to take the 5th....

Imagine lots of folks don't comprehend that in todays world cameras on police record everything you say...

Sort of.

Miranda only applies to custody. If they are not in custody, Miranda generally doesn’t apply. Generally, in the cop shows the person isn’t being interviewed after being taken into custody, it’s the lead detective having a “friendly” conversation with the suspect. The cat and mouse that leads to the lawyer barging in a just the right moment. Yeah, makes for good TV.

In real life, a lawyer showing up isn’t common. At least not around here.

As long as you can reasonably be considered free to leave I can ask whatever questions I want without reading Miranda. If I don't need to ask you any questions, I can also hook you up and take you to jail without ever reading Miranda. I've had many drunken belligerents scream at me from the back seat that my arrest is invalid because I never read them their rights...so far none of them has been able to convince a judge of that concept.

I'm not a detective, so most of my arrests happen on the street and not in the interview room, but I can't think of a time that a lawyer has ever shown up to an interview. If the suspect asks for one, we stop questioning and they just go to jail (they're in custody, so probable cause has already been established). They have the option to come back and do an interview later with a lawyer, but usually the lawyer isn't going to want them doing that because they're guilty as hell and have already demonstrated that they're also stupid by getting caught in the first place.

I can only think of one time that I had a guy come back after an arrest and do a followup interview on the advice of his attorney, and the attorney didn't even come with him. He did call me and set it up. That was a constructive possession case where the guy was the driver with a couple of other guys in the car and a bunch of dope, and he was trying to make his case that he wasn't involved.

Back around 1969 or 1970 I was being interviewed after I discovered the body of a friend who had died the night before.

I was not accused of anything, not a "person of interest," and as far as I knew I was free to leave.

I did want to help the police in their investigation but I was becoming more and more uncomfortable with the conversation and the innuendos that I thought they were making, so I told them that I would prefer not to continue without a lawyer present.

They provided me with a telephone, let me call a lawyer, and left me alone until he arrived. The questioning continued once the lawyer showed up. The cops did not ask anything that caused the lawyer to object, we established a timeline for the death (which was determined to be accidental), the lawyer and I left, and that was the end of it.

I watch YouTube videos of attorneys. Not specific to the attorney barging in as in the OP and assuming you're just being questioned, you have to expressly say, "I would like an attorney" or "I invoke my right to have an attorney present" at which point, all questioning is supposed to cease.

You can't say, "I think I want a lawyer" or "Do you think I need a lawyer?" those won't do. As far as the attorney supposedly barging in, I suppose that the presence of the attorney means all questioning stops if the lawyer tells the cops no more.

Lawyers can’t just get into police stations unescorted much less bust into an interview room.

It’s TV.

It's all good man...

If you say you want a lawyer and you don't have one, what happens? Do they automatically call a public defender for you or make you look in the yellow pages if you can afford one?

^^^ That's also a great question.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
If you say you want a lawyer and you don't have one, what happens? Do they automatically call a public defender for you or make you look in the yellow pages if you can afford one?

I worked in NC, small town where there were no public defenders, all the local practicing lawyers took turns when a judge appointed them to defend someone. That means the guy has to get to court to get a lawyer appointed by the district I judge.

Backing up to the interview and the suspect asks for a lawyer but can’t afford one, we would charge him, book him and take him to the magistrate where he was incarcerated or allowed to post bond based on the magistrates schedule.

Or if we didn’t have enough PC to charge him, we’d cut him loose and tell him to have his lawyer call det doofensmerch.

I dunno how it worked in larger cities like Durham or Raleigh that had a public defenders office.

Your rights cannot be invoked vicariously. I recall a story from an interview class I took where a couple of special agents were on there way to interview a suspect who had been hospitalized and got a call from an attorney telling them that the suspect's family had hired him and they were not to speak to the suspect.

What did they do? Went straight to the hospital, interviewed the suspect, and got a confession.

Rules change constantly and many above are right. In a nutshell, Miranda generally applies when a suspect is in custody. A family member or lawyer cannot invoke right to silence, it has to come from suspect themselves. Once a person becomes the focus of an investigation, Miranda warnings should be given, in custody or not.

Little nuances are argued in court all the time, even when everything was done right. Like the 'focus of the investigation' one. Custodial interrogation one was argued when there were cases where the suspect was interviewed via phone, to negate the 'custodial' aspect. Defense lawyer argued that the defendant was the focus of the investigation and the known suspect. Police wanted to circumvent the custodial factor so deceitfully conducted the interview via phone. Court agreed.