The Miranda rights has created burdens on the police’s ability to conduct effective interrogations.  Therefore, several recent court decisions have begun to limit a custodial suspect’s ability to invoke the right to counsel and stop all further interrogation. Specifically, the Court wants to ensure that a suspect’s invocation of rights is unequivocally done in a timely manner.

If individuals are arrested or questioned, the burden is on them to invoke their right to counsel in a clear and unequivocal manner. They should receive notice that they have the right to an attorney, but the police is not required to ask them whether they want an attorney, nor do they need to ask them clarifying questions if they are unclear in their request for an attorney. Not only must invoking the right to counsel be unequivocal, but courts also have begun to insist that demanding the right to counsel be made in a timely manner. The remedy for violation of the Sixth Amendment rule is that any statements obtained from defendants under these circumstances will be excluded from the evidence at trial due to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. This is also known as the exclusionary rule.  There is one important exception to the Sixth Amendment exclusionary rule: evidence obtained from defendants during interrogation held in custody that violates the Sixth Amendment may be used for the sole purpose of impeaching the defendants’ testimony at trial.

A defendant is entitled to counsel from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial. The courts have gradually expanded this idea to the point that there is a legal concept of “a critical stage in a criminal proceeding” that indicates when a defendant must be represented by counsel.  The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets out many rights for defendants during a criminal prosecution, including the right of the accused to confront their accusers. The text of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The 14th Amendment has made the 6th Amendment’s right to confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court.

For in-court statements, the confrontation clause essentially means that the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses in order to challenge their testimony.  A trial court may prevent repetitive or unduly harassing cross-examination, but defendants otherwise have freedom to confront witnesses during a cross-examination. If a trial judge restricts cross-examination too severely, a violation of the confrontation clause may have occurred, and the verdict will be overturned at appeal.

Courts have explained that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as guaranteeing the “effective assistance of counsel” to criminal defendants. It doesn’t matter whether the attorney is hired by the defendant or appointed by the government. However, questionable strategic choices made by an attorney do not cause a conviction to be overturned, unless it is clear that the attorney’s incompetence affected the outcome of the case.

If you have any questions regarding your rights to use the Sixth Amendment, contact experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819.