In short
A meeting with a lawyer in prison is a meeting, for the defence, between a person in pre-trial detention or a convicted prisoner and defence counsel. It is not a family visit. The aim is the claim in the file, the statement, and preparation of an application. The person is not treated as having gone in before the power of attorney and the identity document the institution asks for are complete. The length of the meeting is not in this text. The period is read from the institution's own record, and no minutes are written here.
Relatives asking after someone's health is not the subject of this record. Counsel separates what the person recounted from the line in the minutes. The person may open a subject that was not asked, in the meeting. The place of an institution officer at a family visit is not carried into this meeting of itself. The petition does not join the two doors in the same sentence.
A meeting with counsel is not a family visit
What is spoken in the meeting may be the defence, and an application against a measure if there is one. A family visit stands under family contact. A list of relatives does not stand in for the power of attorney. A visitor record does not show that counsel went in. The document should write who went in, and in which capacity. A capacity that was not written does not stand in the petition as if it were there.
Preparation can also cover the draft of the petition. The draft does not stand in for the institution's visitors' list. If the decision has not yet been served, the meeting is not put in place of service. If there is service, the service does not of itself show the day the meeting took place. The two documents are kept apart. The application reads from the document which stage was discussed, and a stage is not invented.
The power of attorney and the identity document
The institution asks for a power of attorney and an identity document. If a document is missing, the meeting may not be held that day. The gap does not mean the right of defence has fallen. A fresh application is the completion of the missing page. A prohibited item is not the subject of the meeting. A ban on an item does not carry the period into this text. The period is still not written.
An appointment record shows that the person is at the institution. The record does not of itself prove that the power of attorney is valid. If the name on the power of attorney and the name on the identity conflict, a conclusion that the person went in is not built before the conflict is cured. The minutes can also write separately whether there was an entry. An entry that was not written is not added to the petition. The decision is not reached while the two documents do not stand side by side.
The name on the identity document and the name on the power of attorney should show the same person. A different name does not of itself prove that entry was made. The institution may not accept the conflicting page that day. Not accepting it does not mean the right has lapsed. Once the missing page is completed, the application is renewed. The document is not read without separating the persons in the two names.
Confidentiality is not the rule of a family visit
The confidentiality of the meeting stands under confidentiality in the meeting. A claim that it was listened to is a separate dispute, and this text does not turn that claim into a ruling. An officer waiting at the door does not mean the content of the conversation was written. If the content was written, those minutes are asked for separately. Content that was not written is not added to the petition.
The arrangement of the family's open visit is not applied to this room of itself. The room record shows who went in. If there is no record, it is not said that the meeting did not happen, nor that it did. The petition does not write the name of the room without a document. The person may also choose silence in the meeting. Silence does not prevent counsel from going in. The minutes write separately whether the silence passed.
A person in pre-trial detention and a convicted prisoner are not the same record
A meeting between a person in pre-trial detention and counsel stands under a meeting with a person in pre-trial detention. A meeting between a convicted prisoner and counsel stands under a convicted prisoner's meeting. A person in pre-trial detention may be under a measure before the judgment has become final. The record of a convicted prisoner is not stuck onto the petition of the person in pre-trial detention of itself. Status is read from the institution's document about the person. If there is no document, the status is not chosen by guesswork.
The length of the meeting is not in this distinction either. The schedule is in the institution's own record, and the minutes are not copied here. An article number is not added either. The institution may not give the person the paper that came out of the meeting. A paper that was not given does not mean the meeting did not take place. The petition stops at the entry document in hand and the power of attorney. The decision is not reached while the record the institution kept is still outstanding.
Where the meeting is read from
The question of how a meeting with a lawyer in prison works is built from the power of attorney, the identity, and the institution's record, and it is read apart from a family visit. The office being in Çankaya does not change the authority of the penal institution. That is read from the document. The length of the meeting is not written. In the petition, the record of pre-trial detention is not put in place of a convicted prisoner's meeting.
Conclusion
A meeting with a lawyer in prison is preparation of the defence, and it is not a copy of a family visit. The length of the meeting is not written. No outcome is stated while the power of attorney and the institution's document are still outstanding. A person in pre-trial detention and a convicted prisoner are separate records. The frame sits on the criminal law page. The basis is the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271.