RICHMOND — The worst sequel I ever saw was “Caddyshack 2,” followed closely by “Ghostbusters 2.” The moral of this story: if Bill Murray’s in the original, don’t make a sequel. Maybe that’s why there are no plans to make “Lost in Translation 2.” Maybe not.

When I wrote the column, “Six little known truths about our legal system,” I got more positive feedback than on any other column. I always intended to write a follow-up, but it took a little longer than I planned. I didn’t want to write a lousy sequel. I hope this is “The Godfather Part II,” not “Grease 2.” Once again, nothing in this column is legal advice and should not be taken that way.



The police do not always have to read Miranda rights.

Many of my clients who have been arrested for a minor crime complain, “They never read me my Miranda rights.” Miranda rights are: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. We’ve all learned through popular media that when a person is arrested their Miranda rights must be read, right? Not necessarily. In fact, the Miranda rights always exist, but they must only be read under certain circumstances.

The Miranda rights were created by a 1966 opinion of the United States Supreme Court, Miranda v. Arizona. The Court ruled by a 5-4 vote, defendants in custody must be read their rights before questioning by law enforcement. That’s the key: in custody. In the vast majority of simple criminal cases, all police questioning takes place before the defendant is placed in custody. If the defendant is not questioned after being taken into custody, the rights usually are never read — and legally don’t have to be. If a defendant is taken into custody and the officer fails to read the Miranda rights, any statements the defendant makes after being placed in custody are not allowed to be used in court. That’s it. There is no other legal consequence.



When you get a divorce, it may be better for everyone if the lawyers get along.

Sometimes, when a couple is getting divorced, one of them will hire the meanest, nastiest lawyer available. It is done to punish the ex. That may be cathartic, but it’s not always smart. When a divorce gets nasty, a lawyer who likes to bill big hours may be the only winner. Often, any financial gain for either side is offset by the increased legal fees (which is a good reason to inquire about a flat fee).

You don’t want your lawyer to wimp out; an assertive but reasonable attorney is a good choice. If both sides hire attorneys who can help them find common ground, it benefits all parties – especially the kids. Divorce is hard on kids no matter what. Divorcing parents should seek to make the transition easier. That starts with hiring attorneys who will decrease hard feelings if possible – not stoke the fire.



If you’re charged with a DUI, you’ve already lost.

The Kentucky legislature has continually gotten tougher on people convicted of driving under the influence — that’s a good thing. The truth is, just being charged with a DUI, even if you aren’t convicted, comes with a big cost. Prosecutors don’t drop DUIs without a fight, and in cases with a valid breath test, they are required by statute to pursue conviction. It is exceedingly rare that a DUI charge is amended or dismissed without the services of an attorney. In this area, attorney’s fees for a competent DUI lawyer start around $500 for a simple plea and can stretch into the thousands depending on how far the case goes. So even if you “win,” you’ve lost a lot of money to get there.

Generally, when a DUI case is flawed, the offer from the prosecution is not a dismissal, it is an amendment to a lesser charge: Operating Contrary to Law. It is difficult to pass up this offer because of the stiff penalties associated with a DUI conviction, but Operating Contrary to Law is no financial picnic either. It carries a heavy fine and points against your operator’s license. Beyond that, insurance carriers treat a DUI amended to Operating Contrary to Law virtually the same as a DUI conviction. That means significantly higher premiums for three to five years.



If you don’t write a will, the court will write one for you.

If you die with a will you leave what is called a “testate” estate. If you die without one you have died “intestate.” Dying intestate doesn’t mean all your friends and relatives are free to divvy up your things as they see fit. It means the court will divide your property according to law. If you die married, your spouse may only get half of your estate; your children will get the other half. That surprises a lot of people. Real estate often passes through survivorship as stated in the deed – but not always, and it can get pretty complicated.

If you die without a spouse, your kids will get all your stuff. If you die without a spouse and without children it gets even more complex, but the law considers every situation. If you’re uncomfortable with any of these scenarios, you need a will. It’s impossible to state your preferences after you’re gone.

Wesley Browne is an attorney with Browne Law Office, PSC. Mr. Browne can be reached through his website www.brownelawoffice.com.