Re: [tlug] Collection of Responses, mostly on the Reiser thread(s)

["Walter Hansen" <gandalf@example.com>]

>> However, it is my understanding that Erin is correct: between the time
>> that you ask for your lawyer, and the time that the lawyer confers
>> with you, anything you say is inadmissible in court. There may well be
>> a technicality or loophole or two that makes stuff admissible, but it
>> is almost surely not.
>
> I have always understood it to be that as long as the subject was read
> his Miranda Rights, and he can be reasonably assumed to have understood
> them, it becomes the subjects responsibility to use his right to
> silence.  If he speaks, without undue influence, anything he says and
> does can and will be used against him in court. (like it says)
> The only difference when the lawyer shows up is that he will make sure
> his client uses his right to silence as not doing so will only serve to
> weaken his case.
>
> Sorry, no links.  But Police Quest and whole lot of TV can teach you a
> few things about due process in the USA  :)

Accoding to Law & Order (US tv show) and it's generally pretty accurate,
the moment the person asks for a lawyer, all bets are off. It's almost
like they could ask for a lawyer, confess and the police could never use
it. Once they ask for the lawyer the police can't question them until a
lawyer is present. Now this may very well reflect New York State law. It
could be different from State to State as many laws are, but I suspect it
is mostly the truth for the whole US.

I expect laws in other nations to be greatly different. Although I would
expect the US Embasy in Japan to try and protect and help US citizens
living there. And don't ever get arrested in Mexico or South America.