the police investigate a crime, be it burglary, theft, drug sales, domestic violence, or any other
offense, it is typical for them to get as much information from witness AND
from suspects. In fact, the majority or convictions for such crimes are based
on incriminating statements made by the defendant. When a person faces the
possibility of going to jail, they often will give up their right to remain
silent or have their Orange County criminal defense lawyer present
during questioning. This often leads to devastating consequences for them.
Police officers know that the best evidence they can get is
an incriminating statement from the person they are arresting for drugs, auto
theft, assault and battery or whatever crime the defendant is accused of
committing. Therefore, the police officer will often say whatever is necessary
to get a suspect to forget about their right to a Orange
County criminal defense attorney and make an incriminating
statement. However, there are limits to what the police officer can say in
order to induce a defendant to make an incriminating statement. If the officer
makes promises or threats that cause the arrestee to make incriminating
statements, then the defendant’s criminal defense lawyer should file a motion
asking the court to suppress the statements because they were the result of
coercion.
an incriminating statement from the person they are arresting for drugs, auto
theft, assault and battery or whatever crime the defendant is accused of
committing. Therefore, the police officer will often say whatever is necessary
to get a suspect to forget about their right to a Orange
County criminal defense attorney and make an incriminating
statement. However, there are limits to what the police officer can say in
order to induce a defendant to make an incriminating statement. If the officer
makes promises or threats that cause the arrestee to make incriminating
statements, then the defendant’s criminal defense lawyer should file a motion
asking the court to suppress the statements because they were the result of
coercion.
In the case of Lynumn v. Illinois (1963) 372 E.S.528, the police
arrested a women for marijuana sales. Three police officers stood around the
woman and pressured her to waiver her right to her criminal
defense lawyer and make a statement. At first, the woman didn’t give
up her right to a lawyer and didn’t make any statements. But then the police
officer told her that if she didn’t cooperate she could lose custody of her
child. This threat induced the woman to talk without her criminal lawyer
present and she made incriminating statements about selling marijuana and other
drug sales. In court, her criminal defense attorney moved to have the
statements about drug sales and marijuana sales suppressed because they were
coerced. The case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Court
found in favor of the defendant, holding that the incriminating statements
about drug and marijuana sales were inadmissible against the defendant because
they were coerced by the police officer.
arrested a women for marijuana sales. Three police officers stood around the
woman and pressured her to waiver her right to her criminal
defense lawyer and make a statement. At first, the woman didn’t give
up her right to a lawyer and didn’t make any statements. But then the police
officer told her that if she didn’t cooperate she could lose custody of her
child. This threat induced the woman to talk without her criminal lawyer
present and she made incriminating statements about selling marijuana and other
drug sales. In court, her criminal defense attorney moved to have the
statements about drug sales and marijuana sales suppressed because they were
coerced. The case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Court
found in favor of the defendant, holding that the incriminating statements
about drug and marijuana sales were inadmissible against the defendant because
they were coerced by the police officer.
Likewise, in the case of In re J. Clyde K., (1987)192
Cal.App.3d 710, three minors were caught with stolen property. They
faced charges for grand theft as well as receiving stolen property. The
arresting officer told the minors that they would be cited and released if they
gave up their right to a criminal defense attorney and “told the truth”
but would be taken into custody if they lied. One minor confessed without his
defense lawyer present and was cited and released. However, even though the
officer actually followed through with his promise to cite and release the
defendant, the court held the confession was still coerced and was therefore
inadmissible against the defendant at his criminal trial for theft and
receiving stolen property.
Cal.App.3d 710, three minors were caught with stolen property. They
faced charges for grand theft as well as receiving stolen property. The
arresting officer told the minors that they would be cited and released if they
gave up their right to a criminal defense attorney and “told the truth”
but would be taken into custody if they lied. One minor confessed without his
defense lawyer present and was cited and released. However, even though the
officer actually followed through with his promise to cite and release the
defendant, the court held the confession was still coerced and was therefore
inadmissible against the defendant at his criminal trial for theft and
receiving stolen property.
If you are facing charges for a crime in Orange County, call
The Law Offices of EJ Stopyro
today at (949) 559-5500 for a free
and confidential telephonic consultation. You can also visit us at www.ejesquire.com.
We have offices at 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2nd floor, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675 and 1901 Newport Blvd., Suite 350, Costa Mesa, CA 92675.
The Law Offices of EJ Stopyro
today at (949) 559-5500 for a free
and confidential telephonic consultation. You can also visit us at www.ejesquire.com.
We have offices at 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2nd floor, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675 and 1901 Newport Blvd., Suite 350, Costa Mesa, CA 92675.
No comments:
Post a Comment