Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Grits for Breakfast
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Grits for BreakfastRothgery Ramifications: 'Investigate your defendant before arresting him'
ADVERTISEMENTS
The Rothgery case decided by SCOTUS this spring established that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches for defendants at their bail hearing, but the full implications of that change have yet to be realized or even fully understood.Though bar exams were last week, this question from the Texas District and County Attorneys Association message board would have made a good exam question:Ok, here is the problem. Defendant arrested. Law enforcement for various reasons can't interview him that night. Defendant is magistrated that morning (15.17 hearing) and fills out a request for ct. appointed counsel.Police detective contacts jail and is told thad defendant did not have counsel so he interviewed the defendant, on video, where he was marandized waived and confessed...continue to full postFull post as published by Grits for Breakfast on August 07, 2008 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Wrongful Death
alleging death was caused by the conduct of negligent defendant.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Opinion Recap: Rothgery v. Gillespie County
Rothgery Wins at the Supreme Court... or Does He
Rothgery v. Gillespie County, TX - Right to Counsel at First Appearance
Rothgery Argument in Supreme Court








