When is a Warning Required Before Citing an Attorney for Contempt?

Contempt of Court can be criminal in nature and the Judge has wide latitude to impose sanctions.  But when is a warning required before an attorney can be cited for contempt?  A warning is required before citing an attorney for contempt based on the tone of voice used by the attorney. No warning is required if the statement is contemptuous on its face. Unless the conduct is outrageous and immediately recognizable as an act of contempt, the judge must warn the person that further similar conduct will result in a citation for contempt. The warning must be made on the record, and any contempt order must recite the warning that was given.  What is required to support a finding of direct contempt in such a case is not simply that the alleged contemner used an objectionable tone of voice, but that he or she continued to do so after being admonished according to one Long Beach Criminal Lawyer. A judge, however, may find an attorney in contempt even though the attorney has not engaged in a pattern of repeated violations before the judge. A judge has wide latitude to determine what conduct “so infects orderly judicial proceedings that contempt is permitted.” Because the judge may need to act quickly “to prevent a breakdown of the proceedings,” a single violation may be sufficient.

What Are My Rights If The Police Want To Talk To Me?

In this country we all enjoy the freedom to say no to the police when they want to question us about a crime.  The right is called the fifth amendment to the constitution and permits any person to ignore a request to answer questions from law enforcement.  However, few exercise this right that our forefathers fought so hard to acquire.  The purpose of the right is to prevent the government from running roughshod over the weak and unsophisticated and see to it that law enforcement cannot simply detain and hold someone as long as they want to get information or answers to questions that they believe is crime related.  The most courteous way to deal with the police is to simply say that they do not want to answer any questions unless a lawyer is present both before and during any interrogation.  According to one Long Beach Criminal Defense Attorney, if one is polite about their demand to have a lawyer present, then the officer will likely relent and end the interview.  The bottom line is that the right to say no is a constitutional right and is well protected.

What Happens When a Criminal Suspect Confesses After Asking For an Attorney?

As a general rule, a criminal suspect who expresses his desire to deal with the police only through a lawyer may not be interrogated unless — and until — his attorney is actually present.  The one exception to this rule occurs when the suspect himself initiates further communication.In this situation, police may obtain a Miranda waiver and then resume the interrogation.  A suspect initiates further communication. . . when he speaks words or engages in conduct that can be fairly said to represent a desire on his part to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation.ates. In one recent Court case, a border patrol agent read the accused the Miranda warnings, and the suspect requested an attorney. The following day, a Los Angeles detective arrived to interrogate him. As he was introducing himself, the suspect interrupted and said “What can I do for you,or “What do you want from me.” After some additional small talk, the accused waived his Miranda rights and gave a series of increasingly incriminating statements. The California Supreme Court concluded that while the criminal suspect may have thought he was just being polite, objectively speaking, his remarks could fairly be said to represent a desire on his part to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation. . . .” In other words, since the suspect initiated the interrogation and then waived his Miranda rights his confession was not constitutionally barred. Interestingly, in a departure from the past, the court at least acknowledged that the detectives description of the encounter with the arrestee which he never memorialized in a police report — could have been recently fabricated to defeat [the] motion. It also conceded that the detective would have interrogated the suspect even if he had not initiated the questioning.

How Much Evidence Does the District Attorney Need to Present at a Preliminary Hearing

California law requires that every criminal defendant be given a preliminary hearing within 10 Court days of his arraignment.  At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to convince the magistrate that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed the crime.  If the D.A.  shows probable cause, the magistrate holds the defendant to answer to the charge, and the prosecution must then file an information with the court within 15 calendar days.  If the magistrate finds insufficient evidence that probable cause exists, the magistrate must dismiss the case.  According to one Criminal Defense Lawyer in Long Beach, at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate must be convinced only of such a state of facts as would lead a reasonable person to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt. The evidence that will justify a prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction.  All that need be shown is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it