So, are we done here?

Congrats! Good work.

The End.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
So, are we done here?

---

Easy there Mr. 5000 posts.

Is it 5,000 already? Feels more like 2,500 or, at most, 3,000.

Say, did you know that Brian Wice is a major lurker on this site? I dared him to post something. Now, I double dog dare him.

[This message was edited by JB on 07-31-08 at .]

I wonder if he gets all excited when one of us gets off on a tangent (me), but is then disappointed when another (MacReady or Curl) brings it back on track?

[Hears painful cry from far off Houston . . .]

[This message was edited by JohnR on 07-31-08 at .]

So, if a defendant is arrested, magistrated, requests counsel, has counsel appointed to represent him, police cannot initiate a conversation with him whether he is in jail or out on band unless the defendant initiates the conversation?

Or you get an agreement with his attorney. But, yes, they'd have to go through the attorney so they couldn't initiate contact with the defendant.

Just idle speculation but consider if Mr.Rothgery neither made his first $500 bail nor waived counsel at the 15.17. He still might have been innocent and in jail for almost a week.

If the magistrate in Gillespie County is not authorized to appoint counsel then there is up to a 24 hour delay for the magistrate to notify the court, then there is the delay for the court to appoint counsel, then the counsel has another 24 hours to "initiate contact" but that might just mean he drops a letter in the mail which then might take a couple of days to be delivered to the jail, especially if he mails it on Friday afternoon.

All the while if he had been able to talk to an officer maybe just maybe the officer would agree to dig a little deeper and discovered that he was not actually a felon in possession.

Five pages since the 28th. Is this a record?

Here's another case worth considering:

Appellant claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel were invoked when he requested a lawyer at his preliminary appearance before the magistrate in connection with his aggravated robbery charge, and that the *97 absence of his appointed lawyer at the October 21st interrogation about the murder violated both his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The record demonstrates that appellant requested and was appointed an attorney when he appeared before the magistrate.
* * *

Here, appellant argues he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel when he appeared before the magistrate and �expressly asked� the magistrate to appoint him an attorney.

* * *
It is undisputed that when appellant was charged with aggravated robbery, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached and was invoked with respect to that offense. Appellant's invocation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel in connection with the robbery charge, however, does not impact on appellant's Sixth Amendment right relating to the murder.

Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 96-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

Since he is representing by counsel on the robbery charge the police cannot question him about the robbery but they CAN question him about a murder since that is a different charge.

Would it matter if the robbery and murder were both part of the same criminal episode?

Oh what about could they talk about a lesser included?

If I waive my right to a lawyer and plead guilty, will you please stop it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by david curl:
Appellant's invocation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel in connection with the robbery charge, however, does not impact on appellant's Sixth Amendment right relating to the murder.

Green v. State, 934 S.W.2d 92, 96-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)

---

That's equivalent to Wisconsin v. McNeill (invoking 6th for one offense doesn't invoke 5th for separate offense) and Texas v. Cobb (6th amendment offense specific), isn't it?

It ain't over 'til its over, JB. Or at least until I get all this straight. It matters not that the person that started the thread has finished the case successfully.

JB isn't above a little speculation about the state of the law after Rothgery.

I have no idea if it will end up being a big deal or almost no deal. On one hand the scope seems limitted, but Gillespie County, TDCAA, and the State of Texas all filed nice briefs with everything from the current state of Tx law to a serious policy arguement claiming deciding in Rothgery's favor would be a disaster. The SCOTUS rejected all these claims... so you just can't help but speculate on what that means about all the caselaw that went into the losing argument and if there is really a disaster on the horizon.

This on top of the fact that, as a previous poster mentioned, the state of the law at the intersection of 5th and 6th is confusing.