This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone who handles matters like yours.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
I was under the impression the police weren’t required to unhear anything you say near them. So if she’s yelling at someone while in custody even though she invoked her right to silence andher right to attorney, does that mean the cops can’t use it?
That all depends on whether the suspect started speaking on their own initiative, or the police did something to make them talk. If the suspect spoke entirely on their own initiative after they invoked their right to silence and/or right to counsel, then they uninvokes those rights and the state can use anything they said as long as the police recite the Miranda warnings again. However, if the police did or said anything that they should have suspected would elicit an incriminating response, then the state cannot use that statement even if it is completely reliable and completely voluntary. Remember, the Miranda recitations are the police’s magic words that make otherwise involuntary statements admissible, and “I want a lawyer” are the suspects magic words that make otherwise voluntary statements inadmissible.
Also, previously, it’s been mentioned that if you say one thing now, mirandized or not, and something else in court, they can use that discrepancy against you.
☆ is being a little slow this time around I think. I don’t think there’s a rule anywhere that says they can only use statements you made as a result of questioning and not by yourself, but that’s what he seems to be getting at here.