|
According to Miranda rights, a defendant has the right to an attorney. If that
is so, please answer the following question.
A defendant awaiting trial in Kansas was appointed an attorney. The defendant
also had a warrant out for him in Missouri, but refused to waive extradition.
The defendant remained in custody in Kansas for several months awaiting trial.
Instead of having the trial, Kansas eventually decided to send the defendant to
Missouri to face the charge there, but failed to place a hold on the defendant
to have him returned to Kansas after the Missouri matter was resolved. While
the defendant was in jail in Missouri facing trial, the defendant's
court-appointed attorney in Kansas withdrew from the Kansas case, leaving the
defendant without an attorney in the Kansas case. The defendant then went
almost one-year without an attorney in the Kansas case while he was in jail in
Missouri. When the defendant was acquitted in Missouri, the defendant was set
free from the Missouri jail. Kansas failed to place a hold on him so he went
home (in Kansas). Six months later the defendant was later arrested in Kansas
for failure to appear (despite the fact he was not served with a notice to
appear, nor did he have an attorney) and was placed back into custody in Kansas
awaiting trial on the same charge that he had been awaiting trial in in the
beginning before being sent to Missouri, and the court still did not appoint an
attorney to represent him until after he was placed back into custody in
Kansas.
The question is this: Was it a violation of the defendant's right to an
attorney to have went almost one-year without an attorney while he was in
Missouri? Should the Kansas court have appointed the defendant a new attorney
when his original attorney withdrew, despite the fact he was in the Missouri
jail?
|
| |
| |
According to Miranda rights, a defendant has the right to an attorney. If
that
is so, please answer the following question.
A defendant awaiting trial in Kansas was appointed an attorney. The
defendant
also had a warrant out for him in Missouri, but refused to waive
extradition.
The defendant remained in custody in Kansas for several months awaiting
trial.
Instead of having the trial, Kansas eventually decided to send the
defendant to
Missouri to face the charge there, but failed to place a hold on the
defendant
to have him returned to Kansas after the Missouri matter was resolved.
While
the defendant was in jail in Missouri facing trial, the defendant's
court-appointed attorney in Kansas withdrew from the Kansas case, leaving
the
defendant without an attorney in the Kansas case. The defendant then went
almost one-year without an attorney in the Kansas case while he was in
jail in
Missouri. When the defendant was acquitted in Missouri, the defendant was
set
free from the Missouri jail. Kansas failed to place a hold on him so he
went
home (in Kansas). Six months later the defendant was later arrested in
Kansas
for failure to appear (despite the fact he was not served with a notice to
appear, nor did he have an attorney) and was placed back into custody in
Kansas
awaiting trial on the same charge that he had been awaiting trial in in
the
beginning before being sent to Missouri, and the court still did not
appoint an
attorney to represent him until after he was placed back into custody in
Kansas.
The question is this: Was it a violation of the defendant's right to an
attorney to have went almost one-year without an attorney while he was in
Missouri?
"No Tickee, No Washee..."
If there is no Criminal Action Pending against D in Kansas, then of
course, D, at once, is not in Jeopardy in the Jurisdiction of Kansas, is not
entitled to a Court-Appointed Lawyer, and Has No Need For such
court-appointed Lawyer...
Should the Kansas court have appointed the defendant a new attorney
when his original attorney withdrew,
Of Course Not... the Original Attorney withdrew on account of the Fact
that Kansas was, at the point it extradited D to Misery, No Longer
"Complaining Against" the Extradited Defendant...
despite the fact he was in the Missouri
jail?
See Above...
Now that he's Back In Kansas, IN Jeopardy... COMPLAINED Against...
Incarcerated, etc., Assuming his Financial Status has remained below the
point where D can Afford his own Lawyer, Kansas will have to reappoint a
Defense Attorney...
Naughtius "YES Dorothy, You ARE In Kansas" Maximus
|
| |
| |
kscoinhutch@aol.com (Kscoinhutch) wrote in message news:<20041026225927.03602.00002855@mb-m04.aol.com>...
According to Miranda rights, a defendant has the right to an attorney. If that
is so, please answer the following question.
A defendant awaiting trial in Kansas was appointed an attorney. The defendant
also had a warrant out for him in Missouri, but refused to waive extradition.
The defendant remained in custody in Kansas for several months awaiting trial.
Instead of having the trial, Kansas eventually decided to send the defendant to
Missouri to face the charge there, but failed to place a hold on the defendant
to have him returned to Kansas after the Missouri matter was resolved. While
the defendant was in jail in Missouri facing trial, the defendant's
court-appointed attorney in Kansas withdrew from the Kansas case, leaving the
defendant without an attorney in the Kansas case. The defendant then went
almost one-year without an attorney in the Kansas case while he was in jail in
Missouri. When the defendant was acquitted in Missouri, the defendant was set
free from the Missouri jail. Kansas failed to place a hold on him so he went
home (in Kansas). Six months later the defendant was later arrested in Kansas
for failure to appear (despite the fact he was not served with a notice to
appear, nor did he have an attorney) and was placed back into custody in Kansas
awaiting trial on the same charge that he had been awaiting trial in in the
beginning before being sent to Missouri, and the court still did not appoint an
attorney to represent him until after he was placed back into custody in
Kansas.
The question is this: Was it a violation of the defendant's right to an
attorney to have went almost one-year without an attorney while he was in
Missouri? Should the Kansas court have appointed the defendant a new attorney
when his original attorney withdrew, despite the fact he was in the Missouri
jail?
Actually, Miranda issues are more about limiting the prosecutor's
ability to use incriminating statements made by an accused person
during interrogation while in custody. The so-called "Miranda
Warnings" put an accused person on notice that he need not answer
questions unless he wants to. Even then, knowing and voluntary waiver
of these rights must be established by objective evidence once the
other elements of "custody" and "interrogation" have been met. Every
legal question is like that what is the practical answer. High and
flight principles aside, the law is really about this "what's in it
for me?" Until you can say what relief you are looking for, all of
your details barely make out a bar exam question, let alone a genuine
legal issue.
I'm not sure how the defendant's rights were violated simply because
he hadn't had an attorney on a case in one state that was essentially
in limbo because of his case in another a set of circumstances
apparently resulting from his willful attempts to avoid prosecution in
the 1st state. I'd have to know why a court appointed attorney was
withdrawn. The simple fact of the older case doesn't appear to be
enough reason since that case was on for trial and looked to have a
conceivably imminent resolution. Also, didn't DEF know that his
attorney had withdrawn? And why should the courts have appointed a
new attorney for the defendant? Nothing in your question makes out
the case for this guy to deserve appointed counsel.
|
| |
| |
|
