{"title":"明线的暗区:起诉前附件第六修正案的律师权利","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Bright Line’s Dark Zone: Pre-Charge Attachment of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel
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.
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.