The following excerpt is from United States v. Loucious, No. 16-10121 (9th Cir. 2017):
presence of an attorney during questioningtaken together conveyed that Loucious could consult with that attorney before questioning. It makes no sense to think that a suspect who is appointed counsel before questioning would not be permitted to consult with that attorney before questioning began. Instead, the warnings reasonably conveyed the inference that Loucious could consult with an attorney prior to and during questioning. See United States v. Connell, 869 F.2d 1349, 1351-53 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that reviewing courts may make logical inferences from Miranda rights explicitly given).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.