In other words, based on this standard, the San Francisco DA"s Office must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" within 48 hours of the suspect"s arrest (the time limit for filing formal charges against the suspect), that the suspect is guilty of the crime.
The Attorney General's responsibilities include safeguarding Californians from harm and promoting community safety, preserving California's spectacular natural resources, enforcing civil rights laws, and helping victims of identity theft, mortgage-related fraud, illegal business practices, and other consumer crimes.
Unlike other states that have 72-hour time limits, the state of California requires that every person arrested receive a charge or be let go within 48 hours of the arrest. A person that is arrested for any reason must be brought before a judge within 48 hours of arrest at the very latest.
Evidence, such as a statement, tending to excuse, justify, or absolve the alleged fault or guilt of a defendant. See also Brady Rule.
Probably the second most common way people learn that they're under federal investigation is when the police execute a search warrant at the person's house or office. If the police come into your house and execute a search warrant, then you know that you are under investigation.
What is a District Attorney? The district attorney analyzes and gathers evidence to determine if there are grounds for criminal prosecution of cases within their districts and presents cases at trial.
In order to detain a suspect, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). But the right to detain a suspect does not permit law enforcement to handcuff the suspect every time.
For most federal crimes, the statute of limitations is five years. Bank fraud has a statute of limitations of ten years.
In order for the government to have power to regulate any kind of behavior, it must have "jurisdiction." In most cases, jurisdictional issues are straightforward—the crime occurs within a particular state's boundaries, violating that state's laws, and therefore giving that state the power to prosecute.
An example of indirect evidence (in the same case) is a witness testifying that she saw the defendant running from the crime scene. Here, a juror could use this fact to infer that the accused committed the crime.
Lesson Summary. Exculpatory evidence is any reasonable evidence that tends to show the defendant's innocence.
: to charge with or show evidence or proof of involvement in a crime or fault.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to: Represent the United States in legal matters. Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
The United States attorney general (AG) leads the United States Department of Justice, and is the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government of the United States. The attorney general serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States on all legal matters.
The president appoints U.S. attorneys, who mainly serve as administrators. Assistant U.S. attorneys handle the bulk of the trial work. The U.S. attorney general, who is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States and the head of the Department of Justice, has supervisory responsibility over U.S. attorneys.
If a crime is committed that is a violation of local, state, and federal laws, does the FBI “take over” the investigation? No. State and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI, and the FBI does not supervise or take over their investigations.
The District Attorney is the elected official at the head of the local prosecutor’s office. He sets policy for the office’s administration of justice, but he rarely knows the specifics of any particular case. The various divisions of the office are headed by division chiefs who supervise individual prosecutors. The individual prosecutors are the ones who handle cases on a day to day basis, but they aren’t autonomous. They handle cases according to established policy and their individual orders.
Generally yes you can. But who you are and what you want to talk to him/her about will matter.
You are not going to get anywhere trying to talk to any of these people if you are a defendant. They are ethically forbidden to talk to you without the consent and presence of your attorney. Even if you talked to one of them, it’s unlikely you’d know what to tell them. They have considerations that are important to their evaluation of a case and things that are not. You are not familiar with these considerations and your attorney is.
Never speak to a prosecutor —even if you are opposing counsel—unless you are in the courtroom on the record, especially the District Attorney, who in a large office, has no business running or discussing individual cases with you.
As you might imagine, this creates a need for many attorneys. The government therefore needs a structure for hiring, firing, and paying all of these lawyers. Lawyers within the government have to report to someone.
Anyone can talk to him or her, but they might not talk back.
Assuming you’re also charged with a crime which is implied here, then Yes, they will love it! Should you? No!
In Talking to the District Attorney as a Witness subject, When someone is arrested, they may or may not ultimately have charges filed against them.
A District Attorney may want to speak with you for any number of reasons. The District Attorney may think you witnessed the event, may understand that you know or are close with the defendant, or simply may want to see what you know about the crime committed.
Whatever the reason, you do not have to speak with a District Attorney outside of court if you so choose.
This means you have the right not to go to the District Attorney’s office or have the District Attorney come visit you at home or at work to talk about proceedings. You are allowed to end any conversation you have with the District Attorney at any time you wish, and need not give so much as a reason for terminating the conversation. You do not have to answer any questions, and can even answer some while refusing to answer others. You also do not need to take or make a phone call with the District Attorney or anyone else in the court. You do not have to respond to messages or voicemails.
This often involves getting testimony from witnesses both for and against the person accused. If you are asked to give a statement, you may not be required for Talking to the District Attorney as a Witness.
If you are called into court and put on the witness stand, you will be sworn in by the clerk of the court . This is the commonly heard phrase:
When on the stand, you will be required to answer the District Attorney’s questions. When testifying under oath, the District Attorney can ask you any question, over the opposing attorney’s objections, and you will be asked to answer these questions. You are never required to incriminate yourself, so you may refuse to answer any question whose answer will put you in jeopardy of being prosecuted for a crime. The only way you can still be required to speak and answer questions, even if they normally would subject you to later prosecution, is if the District Attorney offers you immunity. This means that no matter what you say on a specific subject, you will not be prosecuted based on those comments.
Unlike many other countries, the USA is very informal. You address a DA as you would any other attorney. If you know them well, you call them by their first name, although inside the courtroom in front of the judge you use more formal, respectful language.
The District Attorney is the elected official at the head of the local prosecutor’s office. He sets policy for the office’s administration of justice, but he rarely knows the specifics of any particular case. The various divisions of the office are headed by division chiefs who supervise individual prosecutors. The individual prosecutors are the ones who handle cases on a day to day basis, but they aren’t autonomous. They handle cases according to established policy and their individual orders.
If the police arrested someone, they make the initial charging decision. The prosecutor, generally, makes the decision whether or not to indict that into the higher trial court. Separately, the prosecutor might screen the case in a lower court to decide whether to just drop it.
The prosecutor is determining not only whether a crime occurred, but whether they can prove it (since it’s unethical to bring a case you cannot prove, at least in theory). This might mean gathering additional evidence with investigators, conducting interviews, etc.
Difficult cases always have problems with the evidence. So, the PA works with the police to resolve the problems. This could include collecting additional evidence and interviewing additional witnesses. The prosecuting attorney often has her/his own independent investigator who works with the police to resolve the issues.
If the police are not your friends — and they are not, a prosecutor is your overtly hostile enemy.
For complex cases, the police do an initial investigation of the crime. They interview witnesses, collect evidence, and determine who should be charged with the crime.
When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter, a government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to honoring the constitutional rights of the accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this Rule. ...
A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances to authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule, for example, where communication with a person represented by counsel is necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury.
A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4 (a). Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make.
Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required for communication with a former constituent. If a constituent of the organization is represented in the matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this Rule. Compare Rule 3.4 (f).
See Rule 1.0 (f). Thus, the lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.
The duty of confidentiality prevents lawyers from even informally discussing information related to their clients' cases with others.
The attorney-client privilege is a rule that preserves the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients. Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients' secrets, nor may others force them to. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients ...
If, for example, if a client tells his lawyer that he robbed a bank or lied about assets during a divorce, the lawyer probably can't disclose the information.
Under that rule, attorneys may not divulge their clients' secrets, nor may others force them to. The purpose of the privilege is to encourage clients to openly share information with their lawyers and to let lawyers provide effective representation.
Preliminary communications between a potential client and a lawyer are normally subject to the attorney-client privilege. That means that lawyers can't disclose what prospective clients reveal in confidence even if the lawyers never ends up representing them. ( In re Auclair, 961 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1992).) To be sure, though, you should confirm with a prospective lawyer that the privilege applies before you reveal anything you want to keep secret.
But a client who speaks to a lawyer in public wouldn't be able to prevent someone who overheard the conversation from testifying about it. Similarly, a client can forfeit the attorney-client privilege by repeating a conversation with an attorney to someone else, or by having a third person present during a conversation with the lawyer. No matter who hears or learns about a communication, however, the lawyer typically remains obligated not to repeat it.
If someone were to surreptitiously record the conversation, that recording would probably be inadmissible in court.
You say you had never met the lawyer before this conversation occurred which makes me wonder if you had really retained them. Was this an appointed attorney? If in fact you had engaged the attorney or they had been appointed to defend you, then certainly they should not have discussed specific facts without your permission.
I agree you might have a point here, though I am not sure why the family member was speaking to the lawyer in the first place.