Idaho Criminal Lawyer & Attorney : Chuck Peterson Law Firm : Civil Rights, Trial, Felonies, Assaut, DUI : Boise, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Idaho

I am not a psychologist - and I don't play one on this blog, but the Idaho Court of Appeals has decided that criminal defense lawyers need to pay attention to their clients' mental states at the time they enter a plea of guilty.  In Ridgley vs State of Idaho, decided August 6, Judge Lansing held that the appellant's post trial challenge to his plea of guilty to Lewd Conduct with a minor under sixteen raised a question of fact as to his emotional state and his lawyers competence.  The district court had dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, in which Ridgley claimed his lawyer did not pay enough attention to his emotional state when he entered the plea.  Every client who is charged with a crime is depressed to some degree, but this was different.  The conduct he pled guilty to occurred two days after Ridgley's wife died, and he was a suspect at the time.  He entered the plea just sixteen days after her death.  His lawyer met with Ridgley for less than an hour before he pled guilty, "did not provide Ridgley a copy of the police report, did not contact potential witnesses, did not watch or listen to tapes of interviews of the victim, and failed to advise Ridgley of potential defenses."  So that doesn't sound like great defense work, and in itself, might have been enough to send the case back to the district court.  Combined with the affidavits and evidence offered the district court to prove that Ridgley's mental state was equally suspect, the decision is not entirely surprising.  

So if you are facing serious felony charges like Ridgley was - spend time with the lawyer who is representing you.  Don't shortcut the process.  Tell that lawyer everything so you get the benefit of his or her experience.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Someone asked me today what he should do about a letter he received "inviting" him to appear at a federal grand jury.  To appear or not appear, that is the question.  Not really!  When a federal prosecutor has you in his or her sights, you may get a "target" letter, letting you know that your liberty is in the balance.  You are a suspect.  You are the "target" of a federal investigation.  They want to question you under oath and without a lawyer.  And whatever you say "can and will be used against you in a court of law."  Translation:  you are in a world of hurt.  Under the US Constitution, a federal felony charge arises when a secret grand jury returns a "true bill" requiring you to appear and defend against federal criminal charges.  So if invited, should you go to the party?  No - unless your criminal defense attorney has a really great reason for you to play along.  That happens occasionally.  It did for me once this past year, when I went along and watched a really great "suspect" tell his story to the satisfaction of the grand jury.  Mind you I was not in the room.  No defense attorneys are allowed and the witness is literally on his or her own.  But once in a while - a really great while - there is a suspect who has the inherent ability and preparation that allows the story to be told and not end in indictment. Such was the case with my client - who just happened to not be guilty of any crime.  

Invited to appear? Get an experienced lawyer fast.  Nothing good comes from federal grand juries in the usual circumstances. So do not assume that you can talk your way out of trouble. It's like they say - you have the right to remain silent, but can you keep your mouth shut?  A buddy of mine tells clients that an invitation from the feds to appear at the grand jury is the "rainy day" you've been saving for.  Put away a little money for a rainy day?  Get it out.  If the feds are inviting you to their party - it's pouring.  Time to invest in a good criminal defense lawyer. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled that a police officer must give Miranda warnings to the driver of a car after finding drugs in the car, when he has been sufficiently treated like he is in custody, and not simply the subject of a traffic stop.  In State v. James, a divided Court held that the appellant was entitled to have been warned under the circumstances presented.  James had been stopped late at night, his car searched (with his consent), and he and his passengers had been removed from the car and frisked.  Officers under such circumstances who ask the magic “who owns the dope” question must first advise the detainees that they have the right to remain silent, per Miranda.

James is not an earth shattering decision, although it is seemingly  inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court decision in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), and the Court’s earlier decision in State v. Medrano, 123 Idaho 114, 844 P.2d 1364 (Ct. App. 1992). In those cases the decisions involved more routine traffic stops.  The test of whether a person is “in custody” is still objective -  “how would a reasonable man in the defendant’s circumstances have understood his situation?”  With the usual traffic stop falling far short of “detention,” defendants have typically not received the protection of Miranda. In Idaho, a traffic stop – involving a brief stop and questioning by the officer – without such warnings, has not been the basis for suppression. The Court here distinguished the facts, finding it looked more like an arrest than a traffic stop. In particular, the deputy threatened to arrest everyone unless someone admitted possession of the drugs. The driver got the message – he confessed to save his friends from arrest.  Judge Perry (dissenting) did not agree that the circumstances added up restraint that was akin to a formal arrest under the totality of the circumstances.  In particular, he did not think the officer's threat to arrest everyone in the car was enough to elevate the investigative detention into custody. 

So what do we take away from this decision? Miranda warnings are required when the circumstances would cause a person to believe he or she is under arrest, particularly when an officer is treating the situation like an arrest. If you have been taken out of the car, separated from other passengers, frisked, had the dogs called in to search your vehicle and the cops are telling you somebody is going to jail, you probably get that all too famous warning: “you have the right to remain silent….”  Now, will you remain silent?  All too often persons stopped by the police give them all they need to produce a later conviction.  Not every stop will result in Miranda warnings, but this case gives greater clarity as to the circumstances that may lead there.  But what about the typical DUI traffic stop and questioning by the officer?  "Have you been drinking?"  In custody or not?  Likely not if it is the usual sort of case, but James may give us a better argument that statements thereafter are subject to suppression.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks