Ambiguity During Interrogation

 Posted on June 30, 2012 in Criminal Defense

The Seventh Circuit has decided John Wysinger was entitled to a lawyer when asking if he could call a lawyer. Based on the videotape given to the jurors, the tapes show Wysinger being read his Miranda rights in an ambiguous way according to the courts.  Instead of being read he could have counsel before and during the questioning, he was offered counsel before or during counseling. Wysinger reported he thought he had to choose between the two options of when to ask for counsel.

During the interrogation process, John Wysinger admitted to distributing cocaine and being involved in a drug ring. Even after admission the question arose as to whether this admission was taken in violation or not. The courts decided that in fact he had asked for counsel and was not granted any. Wysinger argued this act violated his 5^th amendment rights to have proper counsel. The courts said any video taken after asking for counsel would not be permitted. This included his admission of guilt in both distribution and activity in the drug ring.

The prosecution pushed that they had overwhelming evidence that did not require the admission of guilt to prosecute Wysinger. The court ruled that no such evidence was presented as the prosecution did not have evidence of Wysinger with cash or drugs.  The only evidence against the defendant was the testimony of co-defendants that could have been swayed. Due to this development, the court ruled in favor of Wysinger’s appeal for a new trial.

If you feel this case may pertain to a situation you are going through or with someone you know, do not hesitate to call your local attorney office. Any attorney is well equipped to handle any case involving these issues stated as above. If your Miranda rights were violated, you can get the proper counsel to look into your case.