Sunday, June 20, 2010

right to council

The district court held that, even though Heinz had not been indicted, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached before the December 27 and 28 tape-recorded telephone calls--because the case had reached a "critical state." Examining the facts of the case, the district court concluded that at the time of the taping, the government and Heinz had become "adversaries." The district court relied on Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170, 106 S.Ct. 477, 484, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490-491, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 1765, 12 L.Ed.2d 977

in reference to: 983 F2d 609 United States v. Heinz | Open Jurist (view on Google Sidewiki)

No comments:

Post a Comment

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc9c3grn_3099gg8gwfdp
Phil Reddish telling on him self

http://riversidecountyhomicide.blogspot.com/2009/04/yagman-on-calif-supreme-court-us-judges.html?showComment=1240593360000