Post by brokenbiscuit on May 6, 2018 1:07:12 GMT
May 5, 2018 23:36:29 GMT @thedog said:
Update: What I previously posted about the admissibility of evidence after an attorney is denied the ability to visit her client during an interrogation actually isn't true under California law in state proceedings (but it is true under U.S. Supreme Court precedent and federal proceedings). Under Moran v. Burbine the U.S. Supreme Court held that an attorney cannot invoke a client's rights before formal adversarial proceedings begin (ie. he is indicted or arraigned). That means in federal cases, or under the law of most states who actually decide to listen to U.S. Supreme Court opinions, an attorney can beg to see her client all she wants, or threaten to sue the agency, while the client is being interrogated, but law enforcement is under no obligation to honor the request. The suspect has to be the one to unambiguously invoke his right to an attorney. Even if the suspect does unambiguously invoke his right to an attorney, there is still no requirement that federal law enforcement has to let the attorney see the client right away. They just have to stop questioning. They can tell her to come back during normal business hours if she was acting like a jerk to the staff.
BUT, in California, for some odd reason the State Supreme Court decided not to follow Moran v. Burbine. The State Supreme Court says that it's a CA state Constitutional rights violation for law enforcement to not let the suspect's attorney be present during questioning if the attorney is the one to invoke the right. That case is People v. Houston.
So, since this is a California state proceeding, any statements made by DeAngelo after the attorney showed up and was denied access would be excluded in a court of law. I highlight, "in court", because evidence suppression just means it wouldn't be able to get to the jury in open court. It doesn't mean that everyone has to act like the statements never happened outside of court. In fact, if the defendant were to take the stand and make contrary statements in court, the statements made in violation of Miranda could still come in to impeach the credibility of the defendant, so even in court the statements aren't 100% suppressed. Miranda violations don't mean everyone has to pretend like the statements never happened. So, I still believe the investigators when they say that DeAngelo never confessed to anything.
Interesting clarification...thanks for this!