By reading the Miranda rights it states if you cannot afford an attorney one would be appointed for you, can a case proceed against someone leading to incarceration without a lawyer, especially if the offense was criminal in nature and led to the incarceration of a person???
2007-08-12 16:16:23 · 8 answers · asked by aslanokla 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Miranda (5th Amendment) doesn't have much to do with attorneys for trials. Miranda is for in custody interrogation. You are still entitled to your rights concerning self incrimination, double jeopardy,etc. under the 5th Amendment.
The 6th Amendment however is the one that states your right to legal counsel during a trial. Here is a link to the 6th Amendment:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/
Basically if you are facing a criminal charge then you do have a right to an attorney during that trial. If you can afford one and wish to have one then you must hire one yourself. If you can not then the court will appoint one to represent you. You can proceed without one (a common practice for minor charges) even though you theoretically face jail time. So yes you can be sentenced to jail without having an attorney at your trial. However, the court will make you sign a waiver at the start of your trial indicating that you do not want an attorney (you are waiving your 6th Amendment right to counsel).
2007-08-12 16:46:08 · answer #1 · answered by El Scott 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In any criminal case in which incarceration is a possible penalty, the Supreme Court has ruled that the accused is entitled to an attorney. So if the accused cannot afford counsel, an attorney would be appointed for the accused.
(Your question refers to the Miranda warning. That applies to situations where the police want to question a person in custody. No court charges yet. But a suspect in custody being questioned also is entitled to consult his own attorney or have an attorney appointed for him.)
Back to the court situation. Even though an accused facing incarceration is entitled to be represented by counsel, the constitution also guarantees a person the right to represent himself. If a person wants to represent himself in a criminal case, the court would question the person to make sure he understands the risks of self-representation.
2007-08-12 16:33:24 · answer #2 · answered by Darla N 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes, a person could decide they did n't want a court appionted free attorney. public defender lawyers are not the best ones out there , but it's better than nothing. the person should express to the judge that they want an attorney. a person can go into a court house and there will usually be public defender offices. you can walk in and ask for help.
also consider looking at the american bar association , pro bono lawyer section. or call them and explain . you might get a better attorney that volunteers to do a certain amount of work for people that can't afford attorneys.
it's hard to find good ones / pray about it / it is a serious matter. good luck.
2007-08-12 16:22:33 · answer #3 · answered by Mildred S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of your financial situation, you can always elect to defend yourself. Only in cases where the court ruled that you were incompetent to do so would you not be allowed. Remember the guy that shot people on the New York subways several years ago? He represented himself and spoke to the victims almost always referring to the shooter (himself) in the third party. Very weird to watch and yes, he was incarcerated for years.
2007-08-12 16:21:38 · answer #4 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes indeed it can. It happens on occasion. Usually, it happens when a person fires their public defender 4 or 5 times. After that many PDs, the court quits appointing them for you, no matter how little $$$ you make. I've seen it happen twice, one of those in Lee County District Court, Alabama.
2007-08-12 16:28:53 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean a defense lawyer, I assume.
This isn't a legal opinion or anything, but it seems that the answer is yes sometimes. A person who can afford a lawyer but declines to hire one might be in that situation. Or someone who 'knowingly and intelligently' waives their right to a lawyer and represents themself is in that situation. It's not a very good idea.
2007-08-12 16:22:37 · answer #6 · answered by Crystal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are some crimes that require you to have an attorney. I dealt with a case once where a man didn't want an attorney, and they appointed him one because he by law needed one.
2007-08-12 16:26:30 · answer #7 · answered by .. 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if the person entered a guilty plea or, chose to represent him/her self
2007-08-12 16:21:53 · answer #8 · answered by eldude 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋