Not exact matches
We hold, therefore, that where, as here, the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police
custody, the police carry
out a process
of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him
of his absolute constitutional right to
remain silent, the accused has been denied «the Assistance
of Counsel» in violation
of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as «made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,» Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. at 342, and that no statement elicited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial.
«I
remain concerned that there is a risk that people who are in
custody will have to wait longer for their trial and will be treated the same as people who are
out of custody, which I think is fundamentally unfair.»
'' [M] aternal
custody arrangements appear to be more stable than other arrangements: children who live with their mother after divorce are more likely to
remain in this arrangement during the first three to four years after separation, while over half
of the children who start
out by spending time in each parent's household or who start
out living with their father make at least one change (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992)...»
However, if a parent moves
out of the home after separation, the parent who
remains with the child gets de facto
custody under s. 20 (4)
of the CLRA, and the other parent is entitled to access only.