Since I am not an attorney, I am going to ask this. If you have client who asserts their right to an attorney, and that attorney states that there will be no further interviews unless he is present, LE has to respect that correct? They cannot wait until after the attorney leaves and then run to the accused and say "now will you talk to us without your lawyer here?" Or am I wrong? Once they are "represented by counsel", doesn't LE have to go through the attorney to talk to the accused?
Though this was not a direct interrogation or interview by LE, you know that it was something they wanted and would definitely use to their advantage. I was wondering if this is why he thinks there was misconduct? Or does he not mean legal misconduct....just that LE isn't playing fair?
I do feel like LE will have to find a compelling reason to be able to present this at trial. It is very prejudicial toward Casey - and I am sure that is what the defense will argue to keep it out.
Though this was not a direct interrogation or interview by LE, you know that it was something they wanted and would definitely use to their advantage. I was wondering if this is why he thinks there was misconduct? Or does he not mean legal misconduct....just that LE isn't playing fair?
I do feel like LE will have to find a compelling reason to be able to present this at trial. It is very prejudicial toward Casey - and I am sure that is what the defense will argue to keep it out.