Yes, any person has the right to the presence of an attorney regardless of age.
The laws vary from state to state. In Connecticut, anything a juvenile in custody says during an interrogation is not going to be used in court unless the parent was present during the questioning, and both parent and juvenile waived their 5th amendment rights. Different states also have different definitions of "juveniles". In some states, a 17-year-old can waive his rights and make a statement without a parent present.
If you are not mirandized, any statements you make during an interrogation may be inadmissible in court. The Miranda rights require law enforcement to inform you of your rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. If your rights are violated, you can potentially challenge the admissibility of any evidence obtained from the interrogation. However, this does not affect the legality of your arrest or other evidence against you.
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.
Send someone off? Generally in a juvenile proceeding, the juvenile is provided with a lawyer if they don't bring one. If the juvenile does not have an attorney and requests one during the proceedings, the judge will normally stop the proceeding and allow time for the juvenile to obtain an attorney. (Of course, the judge will not grant this recess if the juvenile has previously denied offers of counsel, and it appears that the request is only being made to delay the proceedings.)
No, Miranda rights do not need to be read before a felony arrest; they are required only when a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation. The purpose of Miranda rights is to inform individuals of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. If a suspect is not interrogated or not in custody, the reading of these rights is not necessary.
If he asks the question you can bet that he already knows the answer. If you forgot, I hope that you advised the prosecutor of this shortcoming.
Yes. The police can interrogate any minor without the presence of their parent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state otherwise. Parental presence is not required in order for the police to question your child. However, your child has a right to refuse to answer any questions or give any information. They also have the right to request a lawyer.However - If a child requests the presence of their parent while being interrogated, and they are denied that, then any statements made to the police can be open to legitimacy in whether or not the child's statements were given freely and voluntarily, without being coerced. IE: "I'll let you see your parents if you tell me what you did." Not all, but most law enforcement agencies are heavily advised to inform parents before interrogating a minor, to avoid the chance of a situation such as this arising in court at a later date.Addition for clarity: "Interrogation" as used in the above context refers to custodial interrogation, NOT mere conversation.The fact that an officer simply speaks to, or with, a juvenile (e.g.: on the street - in school - on a traffic stop - etc) does not imply an in-custody situation. Custodial interrogation implies that the juvenile is in custody for a violation for which he/she has been, or is about to be, charged with an offense.
As head of the CIA, he was in charge of overseeing the interrogation of many high-risk informants. This sentence is entirely made up, but the usage is correct.
There is no requirement that they be there. Unless the principle has been declared incompetent, they can make their will.
When an attorney questions their own witness during a trial, it is called "direct examination." This process allows the attorney to present the witness's testimony to support their case and establish facts. During direct examination, leading questions are generally not permitted, as the goal is to allow the witness to provide their account in their own words.
The list of Vader's Quest what-ifs are: What if One-Eyed Jack's crew (from Wildstorm's Fire from Heaven) make a crossover cameo appearance on Centares during Ban Papeega's interrogation (with One-Eyed Jack being the subleader of the bounty hunters)? What if One-Eyed Jack and Ban Papeega both did the torture and interrogation of Thurlow Harris (with Vader being present)? What if there were more human, droid, and alien bounty hunters in issue 1? What if Beesix was present at Papeega's interrogation? What if Palpatine was present at Papeega's interrogation via hologram? etc.
The basis for the Miranda v. Arizona ruling is the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination. In the 1966 decision, the Supreme Court held that individuals taken into police custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. This ruling established the "Miranda rights," ensuring that suspects are aware of their constitutional protections when facing interrogation.