You are allowed to ask the police whatever questions you like. There is an upper limit that you can't refuse to obey a lawful order on the premise that you want to ask a bunch of questions, but they don't seem to have ordered you to do anything, so you can ask away. They have no obligation to tell you anything or to be truthful, except for certain questions ...
This appears to be covered by the Norway Criminal Procedures Code, of which an English version can be found here. Chapter 10 deals with witnesses. Here are some relevant sections:
§ 108. Unless otherwise provided by statute, every person summoned to attend as a witness is bound to do so and to give evidence before the court.
There follow a number of ...
1. I want use a friend who has no legal training as my "counsel," do the police have any legal recourse from allowing me to talk to him prior to interrogation? E.g., can they insist that my counsel be a member of the bar in the state where I have been arrested?
Yes. If they don't want you to, you cannot talk to a friend, only a lawyer. If you got an OUI, ...
SCOTUS suggests in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, that a subject's
confession was constitutionally
inadmissible if it was adduced by police questioning during a period
when petitioner's will was overborne by a drug having the properties
of a "truth serum."
In Miranda v. Arizona, it is held that
If the interrogation continues without the ...
I'll address each of your four questions separately.
A relevant case here is Brewer v. Williams, in which the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, by Justice Stewart, stated that
Whatever else it may mean, the right to counsel granted by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments means at least that person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the ...
The word argumentative can mean a number of things. However, when defined as in the passage quoted from Wikipedia, it is not the opposite of 'conciliatory.' It has nothing to do with whether the witness is cooperating with the lawyer examining them. In this context, an argumentative witness is one who gives evidence about a legal conclusion (that is, the ...
If what you show is correct and above-board then you are being sued in superior court. However it sounds unlikely that the plaintiff could have served you with notice of such a lawsuit without you realizing it, so if I were you I would first call the court to see if they do in fact have a case with the docket number listed. Then ask:
When and who served ...
This is a question of semantics. There is no single correct answer as the question implies.
You can come up with many answers that you could defend depending upon the context of why you asked the question in the first place. ie., Is it for a screen play? Or a script? Just for your own personal knowledge? Are you planning to respond to an objection? Etc.
You list one of a number of possible objections that can be raised to a question posed to a witness during a trial. The opposite of a question that can be disallowed under the rules of trial is presumably a question that is allowed.
You are not obliged to say anything to a police officer during a traffic stop, in fact you are generally better off staying silent. This is your Fifth Amendment right to silence. The only exception to this is that the officer could ask for your name and you are obliged to give it under Arizona Laws 13-2412, but the answer to that is language-independent ...
18 USC 3501 says that a confession is admissible if it is voluntary. If it was given during an abusive interrogation, that would generally show that it wasn't voluntary.
There is some analysis at https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/voluntary-confessions.html and https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/compelled-self-incrimination....
No, you are not obligated to provide the requested information.
You're out of trial court and into the court of appeals, where the civil discovery rules have basically no effect.
If the case gets kicked back to the trial court, you would likely be required to respond truthfully.
To cover your bases and look responsible, the most proper thing to do ...
There's nothing private about what you listed in #1; that's all publicly available information.
You can try to file an objection on the grounds of relevancy or proportionality, though we don't know the details of your case to say whether these would be appropriate or successful.
If this case has left small claims, you should be consulting with an attorney.
The detainee can stop the interview at any point and ask for legal council; signing that he has waived those rights for now does not amount to a permanent waiver. The purpose of the document is to provide evidence, should it be needed, that, having been advised of their rights, they have chosen to forego them.
No, you don't have to communicate in English. A large number of tourists and even American residents don't have the ability to do so, so requiring them to do what they cannot do would be silly.
That being said, it's probably the wiser move to be cooperative. An officer is doing his/her job and often has some personal discretion. If they sense that you ...
Yes. You need to answer; they are normal interrogatories. They don't require anything except an attorney's signature (or the pro se party's signature) as well as the notice that tells you how long you have to respond. Look at the rule they are under (it will be in the Rules of Civil Procedure around 33). You can object to preserve objections for trial, but ...
Factual questions? – Dan Bron Jul 27 '15 at 13:11
To describe questions are direct, non-value laden, and not leading, I might use the term factual questions. or, alternatively, objective questions.
Update: I can't believe I didn't say this before, but I believe factual vs argumentative relates to, respectively, positive vs ...
I personally consider that conciliation is based upon differences (i.e. no differences then no conciliation) and thus at the very core of any conciliation there is an argument and therefore as such argumentative.
To be non-argumentative is to do nothing as such and therefore is the balance between argumentative and it's opposite.
Perhaps legally there is ...