The Bright Line’s Dark Zone: Pre-Charge Attachment of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Washington Law Review Pub Date : 2016-08-10 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2821179
Steven J. Mulroy
{"title":"The Bright Line’s Dark Zone: Pre-Charge Attachment of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel","authors":"Steven J. Mulroy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2821179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this Article, Prof. Mulroy discusses an unsettled issue which arises with some frequency in the federal courts: whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel can ever apply prior to the filing of a formal charge by a prosecutor. There are a number of situations - most notably, pre-indictment plea negotiations involving the prosecutor - where a defendant most decidedly needs the assistance of counsel, even before formal charges are filed. Language in Supreme Court cases has suggested that the right does not attach until a prosecutor files a charge in court, or the defendant appears before a magistrate. Some lower courts have relied on this language to fashion a “bright-line rule” preventing Sixth Amendment protection prior to formal charges being filed. But these Supreme Court cases were decided prior to recent rulings by the Court that a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim could cover plea negotiations. The circuit courts are split on this issue, with some accepting and some rejecting the notion of a bright-line rule. This Article argues that a careful examination of the relevant Supreme Court opinions, the text of the Sixth Amendment, and the underlying purpose of the Amendment’s right to counsel all argue for a more flexible approach. It also analogizes from case law interpreting Model Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the so-called “no contact” rule. It proposes a new rule: in addition to being triggered by a formal charge or appearance before a judge, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel also applies where a prosecutor has had contact with a defendant about the substance of the case (other than as a witness), either directly or through counsel. Among other instances, this rule would apply to pre-charge negotiations about a plea deal or grant of immunity; to communications concerning the defendant’s grand jury testimony; and to custodial interrogation where the prosecutor was personally involved.","PeriodicalId":46514,"journal":{"name":"Washington Law Review","volume":"481 1","pages":"213"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2821179","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this Article, Prof. Mulroy discusses an unsettled issue which arises with some frequency in the federal courts: whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel can ever apply prior to the filing of a formal charge by a prosecutor. There are a number of situations - most notably, pre-indictment plea negotiations involving the prosecutor - where a defendant most decidedly needs the assistance of counsel, even before formal charges are filed. Language in Supreme Court cases has suggested that the right does not attach until a prosecutor files a charge in court, or the defendant appears before a magistrate. Some lower courts have relied on this language to fashion a “bright-line rule” preventing Sixth Amendment protection prior to formal charges being filed. But these Supreme Court cases were decided prior to recent rulings by the Court that a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim could cover plea negotiations. The circuit courts are split on this issue, with some accepting and some rejecting the notion of a bright-line rule. This Article argues that a careful examination of the relevant Supreme Court opinions, the text of the Sixth Amendment, and the underlying purpose of the Amendment’s right to counsel all argue for a more flexible approach. It also analogizes from case law interpreting Model Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the so-called “no contact” rule. It proposes a new rule: in addition to being triggered by a formal charge or appearance before a judge, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel also applies where a prosecutor has had contact with a defendant about the substance of the case (other than as a witness), either directly or through counsel. Among other instances, this rule would apply to pre-charge negotiations about a plea deal or grant of immunity; to communications concerning the defendant’s grand jury testimony; and to custodial interrogation where the prosecutor was personally involved.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
明线的暗区:起诉前附件第六修正案的律师权利
在这篇文章中,马尔罗伊教授讨论了在联邦法院经常出现的一个悬而未决的问题:在检察官提出正式指控之前,第六修正案的律师权利是否可以适用。在一些情况下- -最明显的是由检察官参与的起诉前辩诉谈判- -被告人甚至在提出正式指控之前就非常明确地需要律师的协助。最高法院案件中的措辞表明,在检察官向法庭提出指控或被告在地方法官面前出庭之前,该权利不会生效。一些下级法院依靠这种语言来形成一种“明确的规则”,在正式起诉之前阻止第六修正案的保护。但这些最高法院的案件是在法院最近的裁决之前作出的,即第六修正案无效协助律师的主张可以涵盖认罪谈判。巡回法院在这个问题上存在分歧,一些人接受,一些人反对明线规则的概念。本文认为,仔细研究最高法院的相关意见、《第六修正案》的文本以及《修正案》要求律师的基本目的,都有利于采取更灵活的做法。它还从解释《职业行为规则》示范规则4.2的判例法中类推,即所谓的“不接触”规则。它提出了一项新规则:除了由正式指控或在法官面前出庭触发外,第六修正案的律师权利也适用于检察官直接或通过律师与被告就案件的实质(不是作为证人)有过接触的情况。除其他情况外,这条规则将适用于关于认罪协议或给予豁免的指控前谈判;关于被告在大陪审团的证词的通信;以及检察官亲自参与的拘留审讯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Washington Law Review is a student-run and student-edited scholarly legal journal at the University of Washington School of Law. Inaugurated in 1919, it is the first legal journal published in the Pacific Northwest. Today, the Law Review publishes Articles and Comments of national and regional interest four times per year.
期刊最新文献
Permissive Certificates: Collectors of Art as Collectors of Permissions Contract Interpretation with Corpus Linguistics Stop and Frisk in a Concealed Carry World Public or Private Venture Capital Snake Oil Speech
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1