Can someone please explain something to me.
If everyone is allowed to have legal representation for an accused criminal offense carrying jailtime, and the judge tells the accused they have the right to a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one... how can they deny the accused an application for an attorney after arraingment, but before pretrial meeting with the prosecutor? :(
Legally, those who cannot afford an attorney has the right to have an attorney present DURING the pretrial... so how is this possible?

One should have the right to seek an attorney before or after their arraignment, a cort of competent jurisdiction cannot ill-afford one from seeking representation.

That's what I thought :(
So I need guidance on what should be done next.
Is there means to get a dismissal if they send the accused in that situation?
Is there a violation of constitutional rights in this situation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serenity77

...how can they deny the accused an application for an attorney after arraingment, but before pretrial meeting with the prosecutor?

---

Hello again, Serenity:

I don't know how they do much of what they do... But that's not the question. IF they violated the rights of the accused, it puts their conviction in jeopardy. IF you're the accused, tell your lawyer about when you finally get one.

excon

Update...
So I got a notice from the mototr vehicle division, and they stated they have reversed my license suspension on "no substantial competent credible edvidence" that the arresting officer has "reasonable grounds" to believe I was under the influence... BUT I still have to go to court for it... will this help me at all? My licens is valid after being suspended for only 5 days!