A defendant does not have the right to an attorney in a legal proceeding if they can afford to hire one themselves and choose not to do so.
No, the right to an attorney only applies to a defendant in a criminal case.
Waiving an arraignment hearing means that a defendant chooses to forgo the formal court proceeding where they would typically be informed of the charges against them and enter a plea. By waiving this hearing, the defendant may be opting to plead guilty or no contest, or they might be working with their attorney to negotiate a plea deal. This can streamline the legal process, potentially leading to a quicker resolution of the case. However, it's essential to understand the implications of waiving this right, as it may affect the defendant's legal options moving forward.
From what I understand of the american legal system - everyone has the right to be represented by an attorney - regardless of whether or not they can actually afford to hire one. It's the same here in the UK - there is a legal-aid system which pays lawyers to defend clients that cannot afford to hire their own legal professional.
Something is not right with this question. Did the defense attorney suddenly go to work for the prosecutor's office?
Yes, the right to an attorney is, and should be, given to any defendant who is being brought up on criminal charges. Defendants have the right to adequate legal representation, and the average person does not have the ability to provide that for themselves.
Not only is it uncommon, and unwise, for a defendant to waive his right to an attorney at trial, but it's uncommon for the judge to allow them to do so. In most cases, the judge will REQUIRE that the defendant have some kind of attorney, unless the defendant can prove that they are adequately able to provide their own defense (which most cannot). They, generally, require this to, both, protect the rights of the defendant and to prevent the defendant from applying for unnecessary appeals. Judges usually don't like their rulings overturned.
In the United States, the court is required to appoint an attorney to represent a defendant who cannot afford one in a felony case, regardless of whether it is the defendant's first offense. This right to counsel is protected by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Sounds like you are giving up your right to be served papers in whatever legal proceeding that you are involved in, and that you waive your need for an attorney. You basically give the court the right to decide the case without your presence.
Generally, a defendant must waive his rights (by signing a document commonly known as a waiver) before he may enter a plea to a criminal charge. Also, defendants are sometimes required to formally waive the right to an attorney before proceeding to a trial pro se. When the defendant waives his rights before entering a plea, he gives up the right to a trial, to appeal, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, etc. Once that waiver is given and the plea is entered, the defendant is essentially stuck with the consequences of his conviction.
Generally, a defendant must waive his rights (by signing a document commonly known as a waiver) before he may enter a plea to a criminal charge. Also, defendants are sometimes required to formally waive the right to an attorney before proceeding to a trial pro se. When the defendant waives his rights before entering a plea, he gives up the right to a trial, to appeal, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, etc. Once that waiver is given and the plea is entered, the defendant is essentially stuck with the consequences of his conviction.
You may have a legal right to a refund. Contact you State Attorney General for advice.You may have a legal right to a refund. Contact you State Attorney General for advice.
It depends on the context. If it is used in an order from the court, it means that the attorney has asked that their fees be included as part of the judgement (i.e.: loser pays them) but that issue hasn't yet been decided by the court.