Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Crime & Federalism

Criminal Law

: Crime & Federalism

Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice

This book sounds fascinating.  (You may read excerpts of the book using Google Book Search.)  I ordered my copy today.  This book review notes that Speaking of Crime makes a genius observation:The courts appear to accept compliance to indirect speech (e.g., "Have you a way of opening the trunk from there?") as consensual agreement [to a search]. Yet when it comes to civilians invoking the right to the presence of a lawyer through their use of indirect language (e.g., "Maybe I should think of contacting an attorney . . ."), the courts will typically not accept this as an equivocal request for an attorney to be present nor deem it a call for the cessation of further questioning. This is a fantastic point.  Is it intellectually consistent for courts to allow ambigious language to communite consent to a search, but not to communicate invocation of the right to counsel?  If so, why?continue to full post

Full post as published by Crime & Federalism on August 13, 2008 (boomark / email).