3 ms·
I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning; however, it looks like one's right to counsel is restricted if one is not charged with a crime: https://supreme.
by matthewmarkus 10y ago
I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning; however, it looks like one's right to counsel is restricted if one is not charged with a crime:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/352/330/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/352/330/
(1957)
Further, it seems that Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
(1966)
I do think that if one is charged or restrained that the process might work. Of course, that's a pretty big escalation!
- burkaman 10y agoWhy would it work? You think if you told the judge "nothing I can do, it says right here in my employee handbook that I'm not allowed to seek legal counsel without a public bidding period" they would say "wow, you really outsmarted us this time, nice job"? If part of your job involves breaking the law, then the law compels you to not do your job. It seems like you're trying to hack in a domain that can't really be hacked, because it's not even very well defined. The spirit of the law is clear, I can't see any reason a judge would come down on your side of this. Prohibiting a bidding process does not restrict any of your rights.
- matthewmarkus 10y agoI have no idea if it would work. As you state, it isn't very well-defined. I imagine it would eventually depend on a clarification of the phrase "your choice."