Opinion ID: 151087
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: State Court's Denial of Motion to Suppress

Text: After the witnesses testified, Hall's counsel argued to the state trial court that Hall had a right to have his father present during the questioning at the police station. The state trial court inquired whether defense counsel had any cases that suggest that a father has the right to exercise the right to be there as a parent. Defense counsel argued that Hall's question where is my daddy, together with Hall's father's expressed desire to be present, were sufficient to invoke Hall's right to have his father present during the questioning. Hall's counsel argued that in the interest of justice, maybe . . . if a parent wishes to see a young kid of fifteen years of age, if the parents want to see him, if he is there for questioning, I think it would be the same thing if he asked, which he did, where is my father. Ultimately, the state trial court determined that it was the accused's right to assert, not the father's, and the officers had testified Hall never asked for his father. The state trial court thus denied Hall's motion to suppress.