California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS, No. A 579310-01, S029490 (Cal. 2010):
In the present case, defendant had indicated to the officers that he understood his rights and would relinquish his right to remain silent. When asked whether he also would relinquish the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning, defendant responded with a question concerning timing. In light of defendant's evident intent to answer questions, and the confusion observed by Knebel concerning when an attorney would be available, a reasonable listener might be uncertain whether defendant's affirmative remarks concerning counsel were intended to invoke his right to counsel. Furthermore, under the circumstances, it does not appear that the officers were "badgering" defendant into waiving his rights; his response reasonably warranted clarification. (See Michigan v. Harvey (1990) 494 U.S. 344, 350; see also Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)___U.S.___[129 S.Ct. 2079, 2090].)
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.