What would the Court/Law's Response be.....

[Tigger]

What would the response of the Law Enforcement and Legal/Court communities be to this scenario.....

Fred gets arrested at his home on a Felony charge. He doesn't resist arrest, but refuses to give a statement or even answer the officer's questions on the scene. At the jail, Fred provides the basic information necessary for the Sherriffs to book him, but still refuses to give a statement or answer any questions related to the charges against him. When arraigned, he again refuses to enter a plea or answer any of the questions posed to him. He also declines all legal counsel, and when one is appointed for him, he refuses to interact with that individual. He is not violent or abusive but he continues to refuse to give any assistance in his own defense, or even give a statement to his lawyer, nevermind the police or any other government authority.

Is the system set up with a means to deal with such a person? If so, what is it?

 

[radcen]

What would the response of the Law Enforcement and Legal/Court communities be to this scenario.....

Fred gets arrested at his home on a Felony charge. He doesn't resist arrest, but refuses to give a statement or even answer the officer's questions on the scene. At the jail, Fred provides the basic information necessary for the Sherriffs to book him, but still refuses to give a statement or answer any questions related to the charges against him. When arraigned, he again refuses to enter a plea or answer any of the questions posed to him. He also declines all legal counsel, and when one is appointed for him, he refuses to interact with that individual. He is not violent or abusive but he continues to refuse to give any assistance in his own defense, or even give a statement to his lawyer, nevermind the police or any other government authority.

Is the system set up with a means to deal with such a person? If so, what is it?

The current system does allow for this, and actually encouyrages it (in theory). The right to remain silent.

Fred could still face prosecution based on whatever evidence they can gather and/or make-up.

 

[joG]

What would the response of the Law Enforcement and Legal/Court communities be to this scenario.....

Fred gets arrested at his home on a Felony charge. He doesn't resist arrest, but refuses to give a statement or even answer the officer's questions on the scene. At the jail, Fred provides the basic information necessary for the Sherriffs to book him, but still refuses to give a statement or answer any questions related to the charges against him. When arraigned, he again refuses to enter a plea or answer any of the questions posed to him. He also declines all legal counsel, and when one is appointed for him, he refuses to interact with that individual. He is not violent or abusive but he continues to refuse to give any assistance in his own defense, or even give a statement to his lawyer, nevermind the police or any other government authority.

Is the system set up with a means to deal with such a person? If so, what is it?

What felony and how substantial is the proof?

 

[Tigger]

The current system does allow for this, and actually encouyrages it (in theory). The right to remain silent.

Fred could still face prosecution based on whatever evidence they can gather and/or make-up.

So, is the defense attorney required to attempt some sort of actual defense of such an individual? Even though the defendant will do nothing to help themselves or attempt to contramand anything that the prosecutor alledges?

What felony and how substantial is the proof?

Pick a non-violent felony of your choice, it really doesn't matter. I'm more interested in how the system would deal with an individual who essentially chooses to ignore the situation he is in, entirely.

 

[joG]

So, is the defense attorney required to attempt some sort of actual defense of such an individual? Even though the defendant will do nothing to help themselves or attempt to contramand anything that the prosecutor alledges?



Pick a non-violent felony of your choice, it really doesn't matter. I'm more interested in how the system would deal with an individual who essentially chooses to ignore the situation he is in, entirely.

I suspect that the probability of his being convicted would increase.

 

[sangha]

What would the response of the Law Enforcement and Legal/Court communities be to this scenario.....

Fred gets arrested at his home on a Felony charge. He doesn't resist arrest, but refuses to give a statement or even answer the officer's questions on the scene. At the jail, Fred provides the basic information necessary for the Sherriffs to book him, but still refuses to give a statement or answer any questions related to the charges against him. When arraigned, he again refuses to enter a plea or answer any of the questions posed to him. He also declines all legal counsel, and when one is appointed for him, he refuses to interact with that individual. He is not violent or abusive but he continues to refuse to give any assistance in his own defense, or even give a statement to his lawyer, nevermind the police or any other government authority.

Is the system set up with a means to deal with such a person? If so, what is it?

He will be arrested and charged. At arraignment, if he doesn't enter a plea, a plea will be entered for him (presumably "not guilty")

At trial, the state will present its' case. If it proves him guilty (according to a jury or a judge) he will be convicted. There is a chance, if he remains completely silent throughout the trial, that he will be deemed incompetent and have an attorney appointed to defend him.

 

[Tigger]

I suspect that the probability of his being convicted would increase.

More than likely. I just wonder how/what sort of defense an attorney could put together without any assistance from their client.

He will be arrested and charged. At arraignment, if he doesn't enter a plea, a plea will be entered for him (presumably "not guilty")

At trial, the state will present its' case. If it proves him guilty (according to a jury or a judge) he will be convicted. There is a chance, if he remains completely silent throughout the trial, that he will be deemed incompetent and have an attorney appointed to defend him.

I was assuming that an attorney would be appointed for them. What then happens when the defendant is unwilling to even talk to that attorney? How does one go about building a defense when one has nothing to go on? Especially if the defendant makes it clear they'd be just as happy to stay in their jail cell as to even appear in court.


On a side-note, I wonder how the media and public would react to such a case.

 

[sangha]

I was assuming that an attorney would be appointed for them. What then happens when the defendant is unwilling to even talk to that attorney? How does one go about building a defense when one has nothing to go on? Especially if the defendant makes it clear they'd be just as happy to stay in their jail cell as to even appear in court.

The defense atty would do as good a job as s/he could. They'd look at the evidence the police have. Maybe go to the scene, seek out witnesses and interview them, etc.

The accused have the right to not aid in their own defense. It's their choice, even if it's an incredibly stupid one

 

[Tigger]

The defense atty would do as good a job as s/he could. They'd look at the evidence the police have. Maybe go to the scene, seek out witnesses and interview them, etc.

The accused have the right to not aid in their own defense. It's their choice, even if it's an incredibly stupid one

Basically the system moves on regardless of what the defendant does or doesn't do for their own defense. That's basically what I'd evpected, but I knew there had to be people here at DP who were more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am.

 

[radcen]

So, is the defense attorney required to attempt some sort of actual defense of such an individual? Even though the defendant will do nothing to help themselves or attempt to contramand anything that the prosecutor alledges?

Ethically, yes, even if only to dispute the prosecution's case. In reality? I doubt many would put up much effort.

 

[clownboy]

By doing all that, in reality, Fred is waiving his defense. All the prosecution has to do is put forth their case and they'd be doing so unopposed, by Fred's wishes.

Fred is a fool.

 

[radcen]

By doing all that, in reality, Fred is waiving his defense. All the prosecution has to do is put forth their case and they'd be doing so unopposed, by Fred's wishes.

Fred is a fool.

Fred is smart for not talking to investigators or prosecutors. Fred is a fool for not talking with his own attorney.

 

[Ray410]

It's pretty simple.

Without cooperation from Fred, the job of the defense attorney will be to hold the prosecution to the standard of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fred can then go to prison, all without speaking or cooperating.

 

[Tigger]

Ethically, yes, even if only to dispute the prosecution's case. In reality? I doubt many would put up much effort.

So essentially Fred is unlikely to get any significant defense. That's about what I figured but it's nice to have that confirmed.

By doing all that, in reality, Fred is waiving his defense. All the prosecution has to do is put forth their case and they'd be doing so unopposed, by Fred's wishes.

Okay. Thanks for the information.

Fred is a fool.

Fred is smart for not talking to investigators or prosecutors. Fred is a fool for not talking with his own attorney.

Without cooperation from Fred, the job of the defense attorney will be to hold the prosecution to the standard of proving every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fred can then go to prison, all without speaking or cooperating.

So essentially there's no difference, if Fred was working form the assumption that the system had no legitimacy from the beginning and that nobody with any honor or decency was involved in the process and that he was "doomed" from the moment that the cops showed up at his door.

 

[radcen]

So essentially Fred is unlikely to get any significant defense. That's about what I figured but it's nice to have that confirmed.

If he does absolutely nothing to help himself, that is probably the reality, yes.

So essentially there's no difference, if Fred was working form the assumption that the system had no legitimacy from the beginning and that nobody with any honor or decency was involved in the process and that he was "doomed" from the moment that the cops showed up at his door.

The system is more perverted than many would like to think. Notching a 'win' on their career belt is more important than actual innocence vs guilt.

In your scenario, I believe Fred would be doomed. If he put up some kind of even minimal defense, I think 'doomed' might a bit much, but he'd still have a serious uphill battle. The prosecution side still has the naive belief of people on juries that they are the "good guys", and that goes a long way.

 

[Tigger]

If he does absolutely nothing to help himself, that is probably the reality, yes.

That's pretty much what I expected, but thank you for the confirmation.

The system is more perverted than many would like to think. Notching a 'win' on their career belt is more important than actual innocence vs guilt.

I don't think anyone who has ever dealt with the system has any other view of it. The entire concept of the system is so completely broken that it's essentially worthless at this point.

In your scenario, I believe Fred would be doomed. If he put up some kind of even minimal defense, I think 'doomed' might a bit much, but he'd still have a serious uphill battle. The prosecution side still has the naive belief of people on juries that they are the "good guys", and that goes a long way.

Juries are among the biggest problem in the system, as I see it. Between them, the lawyers and the judges there's barely an ounce of decency, morality, or intelligence to be squeezed out.

 

[lawboy]

Is the system set up with a means to deal with such a person? If so, what is it?

State Rules of Criminal procedure vary, but as sangha stated, if the defendant refuses to enter a plea, one of NOT guilty will be entered.

As long as he is COMPETENT to stand trial and stands mute to the appointment of Counsel, one will be appointed regardless.

 

[lawboy]

More than likely. I just wonder how/what sort of defense an attorney could put together without any assistance from their client.

Since he is not required to take the stand, it may not eventually matter.

 

[Tigger]

State Rules of Criminal procedure vary, but as sangha stated, if the defendant refuses to enter a plea, one of NOT guilty will be entered.

As long as he is COMPETENT to stand trial and stands mute to the appointment of Counsel, one will be appointed regardless.

What (if any) are the expectations of counsel, assuming that their client is competent to stand trial but refuses to assist in any way with their own defense? Is it simply to ensure that the prosecutor makes his case, or are there any expectations at all in such a situation? I would assume that refusing to assist in any way pretty much negates any sort of potential appeal regarding the competency of the defense, correct?

 

[joko104]

What would the response of the Law Enforcement and Legal/Court communities be to this scenario.....

Fred gets arrested at his home on a Felony charge. He doesn't resist arrest, but refuses to give a statement or even answer the officer's questions on the scene. At the jail, Fred provides the basic information necessary for the Sherriffs to book him, but still refuses to give a statement or answer any questions related to the charges against him. When arraigned, he again refuses to enter a plea or answer any of the questions posed to him. He also declines all legal counsel, and when one is appointed for him, he refuses to interact with that individual. He is not violent or abusive but he continues to refuse to give any assistance in his own defense, or even give a statement to his lawyer, nevermind the police or any other government authority.

Is the system set up with a means to deal with such a person? If so, what is it?

Easy question.
A person does not have to make a statement or enter a plea. If a person will not enter a plea, it is presumed to be a not-guilty plea.

The person does not have to accept a lawyer UNLESS the court determines the person is mentally incompetent. If so, the an attorney represents him - like it or not. If he is competent, then the case goes to trial without him having a lawyer.

Nothing else to it.

 

[joko104]

What (if any) are the expectations of counsel, assuming that their client is competent to stand trial but refuses to assist in any way with their own defense? Is it simply to ensure that the prosecutor makes his case, or are there any expectations at all in such a situation? I would assume that refusing to assist in any way pretty much negates any sort of potential appeal regarding the competency of the defense, correct?

A person can refuse an attorney and sit silently thru the trial.

Most appeal issues would be waived for lack of objection.

 

[lawboy]

What (if any) are the expectations of counsel, assuming that their client is competent to stand trial but refuses to assist in any way with their own defense? Is it simply to ensure that the prosecutor makes his case, or are there any expectations at all in such a situation? I would assume that refusing to assist in any way pretty much negates any sort of potential appeal regarding the competency of the defense, correct?

The Defense negates ALL evidence presented. Unless it is open and shut, like that Castro case in Cleveland, then a defense can be proffered.

 

[sangha]

State Rules of Criminal procedure vary, but as sangha stated, if the defendant refuses to enter a plea, one of NOT guilty will be entered.

As long as he is COMPETENT to stand trial and stands mute to the appointment of Counsel, one will be appointed regardless.

Yes, that was what I was getting at, but you were far more succinct

When the issue of representation comes up, the judge will see that he has no atty and ask if he wants to represent himself. If the accused just sits there silent, the judge will appoint an atty. If the accused wants to defend himself, he will have convince the judge that he is competent to do so and is making the choice on his own and understands the potential consequences of doing so. That means the defendant will have to speak.

 

[lawboy]

Yes, that was what I was getting at, but you were far more succinct

Much obliged

When the issue of representation comes up, the judge will see that he has no atty and ask if he wants to represent himself. If the accused just sits there silent, the judge will appoint an atty. If the accused wants to defend himself, he will have convince the judge that he is competent to do so and is making the choice on his own and understands the potential consequences of doing so. That means the defendant will have to speak.

That is also in the Rules, yes.

 

[Tigger]

The Defense negates ALL evidence presented. Unless it is open and shut, like that Castro case in Cleveland, then a defense can be proffered.

What I was actually asking was.... If one were to decline to assist their counsel in any way, would that negate their ability to request an appeal on the grounds that defense counsel did not do a proper job? I would assume so based on common sense and what you/others have commented, but I was looking for a specific clarification.