This is not to become embroiled in any discussion here, but to correct some of the discussion in the comments that is simply wrong.
In the Okatan case, the reason the 2d Circuit held that his invocation of his right to counsel (pre-arrest, pre-custodial detention) could not be used against him was because he invoked it in response to a substantive question. Had he invoked it in response to a question such as "what's your name" or "where are you going," it would have been admissible as evidence against him at trial.
This is not to argue the merit or propriety of the point, but to explain what the decision says. You don't have to agree with it, but if you prefer not going to prison, it's worth knowing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by shg.
Okatan & Invocation of Right to Counsel
In the Okatan case, the reason the 2d Circuit held that his invocation of his right to counsel (pre-arrest, pre-custodial detention) could not be used against him was because he invoked it in response to a substantive question. Had he invoked it in response to a question such as "what's your name" or "where are you going," it would have been admissible as evidence against him at trial.
This is not to argue the merit or propriety of the point, but to explain what the decision says. You don't have to agree with it, but if you prefer not going to prison, it's worth knowing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by shg.
Submit a story now.