What if you confessed that you did the crime minus a advocate present?
Answers:
It is immaterial as long as you hold not requested an attorney and have been read your rights.
There is NO requirement to advise you of your rights (Miranda) when you are arrested. Even if you are within custody (not free to leave) and you confess to the crime, that confession is completely admissable in court. The only time that it would not be admissable is if you be not advised of your rights and you were interrogated in the order of the crime for which you were detained. If you confessed without the officer asking question involving the crime then the confession is valid (whether or not you were read your rights).
People view TV and think that the police are required to read Miranda simply by arresting someone. This is NOT TRUE! It is definitely advisable but not required. Police are singular required to read you your rights if they are going to question you about the crime for which you own been arrested AND you are in custody. Spontaneous statements short police questioning can be used against you. Police can also ask questions on the subject of identity without your rights being read. Source(s): Former police officer.
It makes no difference.
It is not a legal requirement to support you of your right to a lawyer unless you are in custody. If you answered question voluntarily, and you were free to leave, Miranda rights are not essential. Source(s): 17 years law enforcement
Then your confession will be admissible.
They don't even have to read you your rights anymore within cal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, you are assumed to know the law, including your miranda rights, but im sure those rights be read out, if the questioning was formal, done by a detective. even so, nought stops an officer from engaging in broad conversation with you. I would say Man up. If you cooperate, you may procure a plea bargain, meaning smaller quantity time in jail. If you receive a fancy lawyer and fight the shield, and loose,,they'll throw the book at you. Meaning maximum time.
I'm assuming that this is contained by the US.
Under the Constitutuion and the law promlgated since Miranda, you have the right to remain silent, and cannot be forced to contribute self-incriminating behavior. Practically speaking, these rules require that you have the right to consult w/an attorney, and cannot be penalzied for requesting one or for refusing to endow with answers.
However - the law is narrow surrounded by its protection. It only applies to statements made as a result of interrogation while in custody, and whethre the elements of "custody" and "interrogation" hold been met may require a pre-trial hearing. The canon does not protect spontaneous statements, nor statements made in response to innocuous (non-interrogation) questions, and it doesn't apply when the circumstances do not suggest custody.
Once those circumstances hold been met, the next examine is whether there was a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights - again a possible audible range subject.
Failure to satisfy the law money that any statements made by you can be inadmissible when used by the prosecutor in his case-in-chief (they can still be used to attack your credibility if you testify).
Whether or not a legal representative WAS present, were you aware you had the right to hold a lawyer present?
It all depends on whether you were read your rights first and be offered access to an attorney before you confessed. If you were and didso anyway next the confession stands but if you werent and confessed then the confession is inadmissable and your rights were violated Source(s): Florida Paralegal
As long as you be read your rights first, it should be admissible.
Related Questions: