 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mattice v. State4/29/1998
s processing at the police station. The tape shows that Wright told Mattice several times that he would "be glad to call a lawyer" for Mattice, and that he would "be glad to let [Mattice] look at the phone book and find you a lawyer". Wright repeatedly asked Mattice, "Do you want to talk to a lawyer?" For his part, Mattice repeatedly demanded a "Native lawyer" and kept asking Wright, "Do you know any Native lawyers?" The tape shows that Wright told Mattice, "If you don't know any lawyer, we'll get a public defender if you want one." To this offer, Mattice answered, "No."
The tape corroborates and expands on the account that Wright offered in his testimony (summarized above). On the tape, Wright told Mattice that he did not know any Native lawyers. Wright suggested that, if Mattice did not know the names of any Native lawyers, he could call a lawyer with a Native-sounding name. Wright also told Mattice that he would be willing to have Mattice "[call] any lawyer and ask him if he knows a Native lawyer", and then Mattice could make a second phone call to the named Native lawyer. Mattice declined to follow this suggestion.
On the tape, Wright can be heard asking another officer, presumably McKillop, for suggestions regarding Mattice's desire to speak with a lawyer. At about that time, Mattice stated that it was his right to speak to a lawyer. McKillop can be heard agreeing with Mattice that he had the right to speak to a lawyer, but explaining that if Mattice would speak only to a Native lawyer, it was Mattice's responsibility to find one. Just after McKillop said this, either he or Wright immediately offered again to let Mattice call any lawyer in the city. But when the officer asked Mattice whether he wanted to do this, Mattice responded by again demanding that the troopers provide him the name of a Native lawyer. Mattice then began announcing that he would refuse to answer any of the troopers' questions until he had spoken to a lawyer - even questions concerning whether he wanted to call a lawyer.
One of the troopers told Mattice, "We are advising you that you have the opportunity to use the phone book and call any attorney you wish, or you can call a public defender, okay? In the meantime, you need to spit out that gum and take the Intoximeter test. If you refuse to take the Intoximeter test, you will be charged with that offense. Is that real clear?" Mattice responded by asking how many people were behind a mirror in the room.
During and after the reading of the implied consent notice, the troopers repeatedly explained to Mattice, "Neither the right to speak to an attorney nor the right to remain silent gives you the right to refuse to submit to the test." The troopers also told Mattice to spit out his gum. The troopers then spoke to Mattice for a few minutes, trying to see whether he wished to call a private attorney or the Public Defender Agency. Finally, they commenced the reading of the implied consent and refusal forms, while Mattice repeatedly uttered variations of, "Hello! I asked for a lawyer and you denied me."
Mattice did not testify at the suppression hearing. He submitted an affidavit in which he stated that he had been handcuffed behind his back, that he had requested an opportunity to consult an attorney before deciding whether to submit to the breath test, that he "preferred a Native American lawyer", that he had been unable to examine the telephone directory that the trooper gave him because he was handcuffed, and that the trooper had given him no time to look through the telephone book or to call an attorney of his choice.
Acting District Court Judge Nancy J. Nolan denied Mattice's suppression motion. Judge Nolan declared th
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|