'Get me a lawyer' not clear enough, court says

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

When 19-year-old Tio Sessoms was arrested in 1999 for the murder of a Sacramento minister, he told police that his father "asked me to ask you guys -- uh, get me a lawyer."

The officers responded by saying they would advise him of his rights and then see if he wanted a lawyer. They also told him two other suspects had already talked to them without lawyers and that an attorney would probably discourage him from giving them his version of events. And they denied his request to call his father.

After they gave him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent and have an attorney present, Sessoms said he was willing to talk. He then admitted he had taken part in a home robbery in which another man fatally stabbed Edward Sherriff, a 68-year-old pastor at the Cathedral of Promise, affiliated with the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Church. Sherriff was a civil rights advocate who ran a food bank in a poor Sacramento neighborhood. Sessoms was sentenced to life in prison without parole, the same term given to Frederick Clark, who was convicted of killing Sherriff.

... This month, the case reached the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which upheld the conviction in a 2-1 ruling. The court said police must halt their questioning of a suspect who clearly asks for a lawyer, but that Sessoms hadn't done that.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?entry_id=90689&tsp=1

I'm not questioning his guilt because he did confess of course but there are some things here that just bother me is all.
First I thought you were allowed atleast one phonecall? If so on what grounds did they have to deny him the phonecall?
And last (and most important imo)if he asked for a lawyer earlier why did they continue to speak to him and ask him questions because once you asked for a lawyer I thought they werent supposed to question you anymore until you had ateast spoken to said lawyer?

The whole reason for the Miranda warning is to protect people from being bullied into false confessions. This happens a lot.

the ones written during the 90's.
time after time they have the suspect in the interrogation room, the suspect says he wants his lawyer, and the cops
say something to the effect of " of course you are entitled to a lawyer, and we will get you one" and THEN they
continue with comments to make the suspect feel he is acting guilty by asking for a lawyer
or
they say "just tell us this one thing....." and the suspect starts talking and talking and talking.

The key mistake is giving up the right to SHUT UP.
Most people can't shut up and say ZIP until they see their lawyer.
All he had to do was keep repeating he wanted a lawyer and a phone call, to every single question.

"Invoking my rights inherent in The Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, I refuse hereby to respond to any questioning without the presence and counsel of an attorney. I demand my right to contract such legal representative."

"Get me an attorney" is not ambiguous.

..sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.

That's not enough time to process all the paperwork. If you need a lawyer, i think you should call one at least 1 year before you know you need one. :evilgrin:
GAC

Edited for a stupid typo.

:evilgrin:

If they take the case that is...

You MUST assert your rights. Meaning you MUST ask for a lawyer and assert that you will be answering absolutely no questions per the 5th.


If you do not do so, the 'interview' (interrogation) may continue all day and on and on.
Even sitting there in silence is not enough, you MUST cite your rights.

I can't wait till my kid is old enough to learn in school all about 'officer friendly' and how the police are only there to help and protect you. That's going to be an interesting day.

I think that he then has to ask for a lawyer AFTER his miranda rights are read. If he didn't request a lawyer after his rights were read, then technically, the police didn't do anything wrong.

...nothing new or unique there. It could be that the story was poorly worded though.

then you can simply ask ahead of time. The way I see the ruling is that they simply don't have to stop questioning you before your lawyer arrives.

Actually having the miranda rights read is part of the process. I'm no lawyer or police but I think there is a clear process to this. Otherwise, the police could just post the miranda rights on a wall somewhere and say, "We had them posted."

Basically you always have those rights, they don't need to inform you for those rights to somehow 'start'. Rights are rights, if you don't always have them then they're not rights anymore, they're gifts.

then none of us have rights unless we ask that they be posted somewhere, observed and noted by the government.

I have a right to not be unreasonably searched because it's spelled out in #4 in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't go into effect when in the middle of having my door kicked in and me thrown to the floor with the police going through my belongings, I say "I plead the 4th Amendment and have a right against unreasonable searches". It's there already.

Get me a lawyer is pretty plain and clear. He said it in English, I presume and not some ancient dialect.

"I do not consent to a search."

Cops will trick you into consenting to a search. Anything they find during that search will bite you in the ass.

I'll keep that in mind should that day arrive--and by the looks of things especially in Wisconsin, that day may happen sooner than later.

keep things out of plain sight.

Saw a vid about search laws and probable cause a few years ago. An ACLU lawyer was doing a lecture about searches and they had actors playing scenarios. Don't roll the window down all the way. Cooperate, but don't give them any ammo to charge you. Don't consent to a search. And if they catch you with anything, shut the hell up. That's why they tell you that you have the right to remain silent. Your protests will give them more than enough to put you away. And with the misplaced fever in this country for potheads to go to jail, you will be cooling your heels for a while.

are most assuredly NOT your friend. They are not there to help you out. They are legally allowed to lie to you and trick you into giving up your rights. "Just give us the ______ (pot, gun, weapons of mass destruction, ect) and we'll leave." And you've just given them more than enough evidence to arrest you.

"hey, I'm contacting you for ________, mind if I search your ______?"

"Ya? ok, you can rescind your consent at any time during the search, you understand?"

works everytime.....MUAHAHAHAHHA

The explicit notification of those rights, which is absurd on its face. Your right to remain silent and request an attorney precedes any reading of those rights by anyone. These rights apply always and everywhere; they are unconditioned by definition.

as well as your other Constitutional rights. The Miranda is only informing you of the rights you have.

At leased that's how it used to be, these days, without the habeas corpus protection, and the 4th amendment obliterated, who knows?

You or I can not just ask for the government to provide us with an attorney just for kicks on any ol' day.

before you are arrested. As for a public defender, if you are in police custody as a suspect, call the public defender's office to find out when their defense begins, and do not answer questions before that point.

However, I don't know that you're entitled to free council any time the police want to talk to you. Regardless, I don't even know if that's really what's at issue here. My dad tells me to do and say lots of things that I ignore, as much as I love the guy.

Sheesh, people. Come on.

I'll need to read this one. It doesn't make sense on the face of it.

As merely a statement of fact ("My father asked me to ask for a lawyer") and an imperative ("get me a lawyer"). In print, it's ambiguous. But it's still kind of prickish of the court to interpret it as technically as the officers did. As if it's an episode of Jeopardy, where the contestant gives the right information but doesn't phrase it in the form of a question.

That's what he should have said.

:silly:

He appears to be quoting his dad and, in doing so, told them his dad said to ask for an attorney. If that is the case, then he never technically made the request himself (again, he just told them his dad told him to request one).

Still, VERY disturbing that that was not clear enough under the law.

at home RULE NUMBER ONE: DO NOT TALK TO COPS. RULE NUMBER TWO: GET A LAWYER. RULE NUMBER THREE: DO NOT TALK TO COPS.

... because the courts are so busy gutting the constitution it is astounding.

I don't want to see a thug get off on a technicality but the laws are written the way they are for a CLEAR AND NECESSARY REASON.

It seems our own judges have FORGOTTEN those reasons.

After Miranda was advised, the suspect opted to talk with the cops.

If the kid invoked Miranda before being advised, I would have stopped the questioning. The other two suspects had already spoken with the investigators, sounds like they had enough for the arrest as it was. Why push it and risk getting the testimony thrown out in motions?

Invoke Miranda all you want, the truth will come out eventually, even with your Attorney present.

Personally, I like to advise Miranda. If I got the goods on someone, advising Miranda adds serious stress, and people have a hard time lying under stress without exaggerating their "tells."

Miranda just doesn't protect the accused, a good cop can make it work for them also.

It doesn't work that way. If they ask for a lawyer, that's it. Interview over.

If the truth comes out with the suspect's attorney present, all the better.

still, i'd prefer to error on the side of caution