How does this situation affect the defendant?

Question

A friend of mine was handcuffed and arrested on camera. The questioning began without miranda warnings givin. How could this affect a case on the deffendant?

Answer 1

A goof lawyer could get him off.

Answer 2

If proper procedure was followed he would have been mirandized as soon as "reasonably practicable" under the circumstances.

Miranda laws exist to protect suspects from self-incrimination. However, when responding to a warrant or arresting a suspect at or near the scene of a crime, the police will usually have to restrain (i.e. handcuff) the suspect first and mirandize them second. Further, there is no duty incumbent on the police to mirandize a suspect until they begin to pointedly question him or her.

For example, if a suspect is fleeing a crime scene, then the police might ask "Why did you run?" or if a suspect assaults a police officer in the course of an arrest, the police may ask, "What the hell were you thinking?". When it comes to asking "Did you commit the crime in question?" or questions directly related to the crime for which the apprehended person is detained, he/she must undergo the miranda process.

People often confuse the right to an attorney to having an attorney present during questioning. So long as the police have advised a person of his rights, it is up to the detainee to either speak to the police without an attorney present or to refuse to do so. Which means that if you are held on suspicion of committing a crime you should refuse to answer any questions until such time as you have consulted with an attorney.

Answer 3

They will have to let him go and it may end up that the charges will be dropped. Make then get a good attorney that won't lie to them, take all of their money and convince them to take a plea. Make sure the attorney does his job instead of having so many clients on his plate, he can't keep up with them all.

Answer 4

it should not even go before a judge