No. 19-5471

J. A. M. v. New Jersey

Lower Court: New Jersey
Docketed: 2019-08-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 5th-amendment ambiguous-request appellate-division appellate-review criminal-procedure due-process fifth-amendment interrogation right-to-counsel
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2019-10-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Appellate Division err by ignoring the fact that petitioner-defendant was denied his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during interrogation?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , 1. Did the Appellate Division err by ignoring the fact that was denied his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during interrogation? 2. Did the Appellate Division err by blindly agreeing with the law division that the invocation, “Uhm, yo puedo, ¢la corte me puede dar un aboagado a mi?” (“‘Uhm, can I, the court can give me an attorney?”) The officer stating “Si.” (Yes). Then the petitionerdefendant exclaiming “Perfecto.” (Perfect) . Was an ambiguous request for counsel? (Pa 1)* ' Petitioner’s

Docket Entries

2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-06-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 5, 2019)

Attorneys

Juan Martinez
Juan Martinez — Petitioner