Is a defendant's ineffectual request for counsel in a Sixth Amendment context coincidentally invoked his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present at any interrogation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Kilpatrick, 105 Cal.App.3d 401, 164 Cal.Rptr. 349 (Cal. App. 1980):
[105 Cal.App.3d 413] We need not address the difficult question of whether defendant's ineffectual request for counsel in a Sixth Amendment context coincidentally invoked his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present at any interrogation. Unlike Sixth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights apply at the time a criminal investigation focuses on a defendant (People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 159, 141 Cal.Rptr. 698, 570 P.2d 1050); once invoked, they may not be abridged unless the defendant later indicates on his own initiative a willingness to talk to police (People v. Pettingill (1978) 21 Cal.3d 231, 241, 145 Cal.Rptr. 861, 578 P.2d 108).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
