sbm bbmI know that a person under the influence cannot consent to a medical procedure but what about legally? If EN was knowingly high (we know this because LE allowed him to get that way) could a good defense attorney attack the interview and any info EN gave to LE as unreliable?
I think you're asking if his def atty would argue that because of his condition - allegedly being under the influence of drugs or alcohol - EN could not waive his Miranda rights, so his stmts would not be admissible at trial.
Short answer: Yes, atty w/argue that. Successfully??? IDK, depends on info we don't have ATM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long answer: Below is a cut & paste from my post on earlier thread.
Did he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, when situation required Miranda warning.
".... Essentially this means the prosecution must prove that the suspect had a basic understanding of their rights and
an appreciation of the consequences of foregoing those rights.
"The focus of the analysis is directly on the personal characteristics of the suspect. If the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or suffered from an emotional or mental condition that substantially impaired their capacity to make rational decisions, the courts may well decide that the suspect's waiver was not knowing and intelligent."
^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning^ and longer excerpt below:
So, alcohol or drug influence = possible defense objection to admitting EN's statements at trial, and ct c/rule in his favor. JM2cts.
Others here suggested he may try to use insanity defense or impaired capacity.
I pity both prosecutor and defense team w this hot mess.
__________________________________________________ _________________
"Simply advising the suspect of their rights does not fully comply with the Miranda rule. The suspect must also voluntarily waive their Miranda rights before questioning can proceed.[SUP][60][/SUP] An express waiver is not necessary.[SUP][61][/SUP] However, most law enforcement agencies use written waiver forms. These include questions designed to establish that the suspect expressly waived their rights. Typical waiver questions are
- "Do you understand each of these rights?" and
- "Understanding each of these rights, do you now wish to speak to the police without a lawyer being present?"
The waiver must be "knowing and intelligent" and it must be "voluntary". These are separate requirements. To satisfy the first requirement the state must show that the suspect generally understood their rights (right to remain silent and right to counsel) and the consequences of forgoing those rights (that anything they said could be used against them in court).
As noted previously, courts traditionally focused on two categories of factors in making this determination: (1) the personal characteristics of the suspect and (2) the circumstances attendant to the waiver. ...
In addition to showing that the waiver was "voluntary", the prosecution must also show that the waiver was "knowing" and "intelligent". Essentially this means the prosecution must prove that the suspect had a basic understanding of their rights and an appreciation of the consequences of foregoing those rights.
The focus of the analysis is directly on the personal characteristics of the suspect. If the suspect was under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, or suffered from an emotional or mental condition that substantially impaired their capacity to make rational decisions, the courts may well decide that the suspect's waiver was not knowing and intelligent."