II. APPELLANT 'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS PROTECTED WHEN APPELLANT 'S COUNSEL WAS PRESENT DURING THE LINE-UP PROCESS AND POLICE INTERVIEW IS NOT A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WITHIN THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THERE IS NO FACE TO FACE CONFRONTATION

The Sixth Amendment states that the accused shall enjoy the right to the assistance of counsel for his defense in all criminal procedures. However, police interview is not a critical stage in a criminal proceeding within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment rights. This section will demonstrate that the appellant's Sixth Amendment was not violated because the lineup turned into a police interview when the witness switched rooms. Police …show more content…
Appellant's argument is without merit and must be rejected and his conviction and sentence affirmed. The Court held that under very limited circumstances counsel was entitled to be present at an interview with the witnesses occurring immediately after a lineup at which counsel had been present. People v. Williams, 3 Cal. 3d 853, 854 (1971). A majority of courts, however, do not. subscribe to this view. People v. Mitcham, 1 Cal. 4th 1027, 1028 (Cal. 1992); United States v Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973); United States v. Bennett, 409 F.2d 888, 889 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1969); People v. Gonzalez, 27 N.Y.2d 53, 54 (1970); State v. Giragosian, 270 A.2d 921, 923 (R.I. 1970).
"The Sixth Amendment does not grant an accused the right to have counsel present when the Government conducts a post-indictment photographic display, containing a picture of the accused, for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender. A pretrial event constitutes a " critical stage" when the accused requires aid in coping with legal problems or help in meeting his adversary. Since the accused is not present at the time of the photographic display, and, as here, asserts no right to be present, there is no possibility that he might be misled by his lack of familiarity with the law or overpowered by his professional adversary." Ash, 413 …show more content…
How would the fairness of appellant's trial have been increased had counsel been present at the interview? Could appellant's identification have been changed, or the issue of appellant's guilt or innocence been contrived, by the presence of an attorney at the police interview? The answer is that the presence of counsel at all pretrial identification confrontations would be the application that has no meaning to the interests of innocent suspects, pointless as a protection of the rights of innocent or guilty suspects, unneeded burdensome on law enforcement agencies, and not likely to be influenced by application in the trial courts. A situation such as police interviews daily addressed by police officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. A counsel obviously has no right to stop or change the police interview. The presence of a counsel at the police interview can be used at the trial only because the attorney can become a witness since he was attending police interview but it is opposite to professional canons of ethics. Subsequently, in this manner, the attorney is hardly useful at trial because he makes a poor witness and could more effectively be replaced by anyone else who was present at the time of the police