 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mogard v. City of Laramie9/24/2001
489. A month later, in Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 308 (Wyo. 1999), we again pointed out that Wyoming is lacking in both a long tradition of state constitutional analysis and sufficient constitutional history to allow departure from federal precedent. We concluded that, " lthough we are not bound by the Fourth Amendment decisions of the United States Supreme Court in this case, we may certainly follow its lead when we find its reasoning persuasive." Almada, 994 P.2d at 309. We then adopted that federal reasoning in finding that "participant monitoring" of conversations does not violate the Wyoming Constitution. Almada, 994 P.2d at 311.
[ ] Analysis of the specific issue before the Court--whether Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10 gives a DWUI arrestee a limited right to counsel before deciding whether to take a breathalyzer test--must begin with Wheeler, 705 P.2d 861. As mentioned previously herein, Wheeler held that there is no such right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wheeler, 705 P.2d at 863. The opinion in Wheeler, 705 P.2d at 863, does not directly reference the Sixth Amendment, but the cases from other states relied upon in the decision are Sixth Amendment cases which utilize a "critical stage" analysis. See Svedlund v. Municipality of Anchorage, 671 P.2d 378 (Alaska App. 1983) and State ex rel. Webb v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County, 25 Ariz.App. 214, 542 P.2d 407 (1975).
[ ] There are many Wyoming cases that have addressed Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10, and the Sixth Amendment, both in relation to the right to counsel and other constitutional rights. Most of the cases that dealt with the right to counsel have followed a "critical stage" analysis in determining whether the right to counsel had accrued at a particular point in the proceedings. The developing path of state constitutional analysis as it pertains to Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10 can be shown by reference to pertinent portions of these cases:
We do not underestimate the importance to a defendant of the right to advice of counsel at the arraignment, which is an important step in the prosecution. James, 196 P. at 1046.
ur constitution contains another section that guarantees the right of trial by jury in criminal cases. That section [Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 10] is similar to the 6 th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. State v. Yazzie, 67 Wyo. 256, 218 P.2d 482, 484 (1950).
In 1967 the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution made its Sixth Amendment guarantee of a speedy trial applicable to all states. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967). Hence, in recognition of the supreme law of the land, the United States Supreme Court decisions on speedy trials are accorded full credit in deciding the question presented in this portion of the appeal. In addition, it becomes the duty of this court to re-examine the previous decisions of this court in the light of our own constitutional guarantee and the recent and later United States Supreme Court interpretations of the constitutional guarantee of speedy trials. Stuebgen v. State, 548 P.2d 870, 872 (Wyo. 1976).
That a defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel at all stages of the proceeding is without question. Hoskins v. State, 552 P.2d 342, 350 (Wyo. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 956 (1977).
A criminal defendant's right to effective counsel is inviolate and the court has a duty to provide such counsel. This duty "is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case." Powell v. St
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|