Court Opinion

ID: 9680055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:18:25.679068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:24.929358
License: Public Domain

CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring).
At first blush I thought we were running afoul of Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548, 219 So.2d 377, because the appointment of counsel for an indigent was expressed in terms of the future, i. e., after the defendant would be brought to court. The present form is no model to emulate.1
However, after reviewing the other Alabama appellate court opinions2 I conclude that Square, supra, is to be confined strictly to identical facts. The Fifth Circuit cases (one of which is cited in Square) are not uniformly persuasive. People v. Williams, Ill.App., 264 N.E.2d 901.
Moreover, I consider that numbered paragraph 5 of the waiver signed by Gamble clearly points out that the officers will not interrogate until an attorney is present if the suspect asks for one.
ALMON, TYSON and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

. I am not impressed with appellant’s purported interpretation of “statement” as distinguished from a response to a question.

. See Green v. State, 45 Ala.App. 549, 233 So.2d 243, for a partial list.