{"id":5217,"date":"2015-08-30T15:55:40","date_gmt":"2015-08-30T22:55:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/?p=5217"},"modified":"2017-03-24T04:20:38","modified_gmt":"2017-03-24T04:20:38","slug":"who-can-i-talk-to-about-my-criminal-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/who-can-i-talk-to-about-my-criminal-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Who Can I Talk To About My Criminal Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"video\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/1gX-2wzlCB8\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\">Remain Silent<\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The most basic concept underlying the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyer-client interactions are privileged, or private. This suggests that legal representatives cannot reveal a criminal clients&#8217; oral or written statements (nor attorneys&#8217; own statements to clients) to anybody, including prosecutors, companies, friends, or family members, without their client&#8217;s permission. It does not matter whether defendants admit their guilt or insist on their innocence; Attorney-client interactions are confidential. Both court-appointed legal representatives and private defense attorneys are similarly bound to preserve client confidences.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Beyond the attorney-client relationship, you can compromise the privilege or your \u201cright to remain silent\u201d by doing any of the following:<\/p>\n<h4><strong>1. Speaking in a Public Location<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Suppose you discuss your criminal case with your lawyer in a restaurant, loud enough for other diners to overhear the conversation. Can they testify to exactly what you stated? Yes. Lawyer-client communications are personal only if they are made in a context where it would be affordable to expect that they would remain confidential (Katz v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 1967). A defendant who speaks to an attorney in such a loud voice that others overhear exactly what is said has no reasonable expectation of personal privacy and hence waives (gives up) the opportunity. Likewise, individuals who discuss their cases on mobile phone in public locations run the risk of losing confidentiality.<\/p>\n<h4><strong>2.Jailhouse Conversations by means of Phone<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Jailhouse discussions between the accused and their criminal lawyers are thought about confidential, as long as the conversation takes place in a private area of the jail and the attorney and defendant do not speak so loudly that jailers or other prisoners can overhear exactly what is said.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Exactly what about phone conversations, either in person (speaking on phones, separated by a glass partition) or using a pay phone? Defendants must be really mindful not to allow jailers and even other criminal prisoners to overhear exactly what they say on the telephone. These people occasionally eavesdrop, in person or on the telephone, and after that declare that they had the ability to overhear incriminating info due to the fact that the accused spoke in a loud voice. (Criminal inmates often aim to curry favor with district attorneys through such techniques.) If a judge thinks them, the opportunity is lost and a jailer or other prisoner can testify to an offender&#8217;s remarks.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In some cases, jailers warn an alleged criminal that phone calls are or might be monitored. That warning alone might indicate that telephone call between prisoners and their legal representatives may not be privileged. If a jailer monitors a call and overhears a prisoner make a destructive admission to the prisoner&#8217;s legal representative, the jailer can most likely affirm to the offender&#8217;s statement in court. Losing Your Right to Confidentiality: Welcoming Others to be Present.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For completely reasonable factors, the accused criminal often desire their father and mothers, partners, or buddies to be present when they seek advice from their attorneys. Does that mean that the discussion will not be thought about private?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The legal representative can keep the benefit by encouraging a judge that it was necessary to include the unfamiliar person in the conversation. If the 3rd party can shed light on the case or otherwise assist the criminal lawyer establish a method, that person&#8217;s presence would not damage the privacy of the discussion.<\/p>\n<h4><strong>3. Sharing the Conversation with Others Later on.<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A blabbermouth criminal accused of a crime waive (give up) the confidentiality of lawyer-client interactions when they divulge those statements to somebody else (aside from a spouse, since a different benefit exists for spousal communications; most states also acknowledge a priest-penitent privilege). The accused have no expectation of privacy in discussions they reveal to others.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The Bottom Line.<\/strong><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The only person that you should discuss your criminal case with is your criminal attorney. You must also be mindful of your surroundings and circumstances so that you do not inadvertently divulge damaging information about your case to third parties.  You should not tell your friends or family about your criminal case either.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Remain Silent The most basic concept underlying the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyer-client interactions are privileged, or private. This suggests that legal representatives cannot reveal a criminal clients&#8217; oral or written statements (nor attorneys&#8217; own statements to clients) to anybody, including prosecutors, companies, friends, or family members, without their client&#8217;s permission. It does not matter [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"video","meta":{"content-type":"","_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[27,51,1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5217"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wefight4you.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}