Although one shouldn’t talk to the cops, it’s not that irrational. After all, if someone immediately clams up and says “I won’t speak unless I have a lawyer,” it’s a dead giveaway in the eyes of the jury that they’re guilty. A jury isn’t made up of robots; it’s comprised of fallible human beings who are swayed by a thousand different things. If a jury hears that a defendant’s first words when accosted by police are, “I want a lawyer and I’m not talking,” they may be significantly more likely to vote to convict the defendant than if the defendant tried to talk “the way a normal innocent person would.”
Well, yes, you should cooperate as a witness. Unless one of the cops gets stupid and reads you your rights.
IANAL.
How many people have been convicted because they exercised their 5th Amendment rights?
The jury didn’t see that, and never will. If the prosecutor tries to say “the defendant asked for a laywer, therefor, he must be guilty”, the judge will slap him down. Or he had better, because that’s blatantly unconstitutional.
The prosecutor probably wouldn’t put it in that ham-handed a way, but he might say "The defendant, when police knocked on his door and introduced themselves, promptly said “I’m not talking without a lawyer.”
And the jurors would be like, “oooooohhhhhhhhhh…”
Were they actually put on trial?
I dont think that would fly either.
It would be cause for a mistrial if the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s witnesses did that.
The thing to remember is the murderer had what he thought was a good reason for killing his victim. You have to give him an opportunity to explain why he thought it was a good idea to kill somebody, even if he’s explaining that it was all a misunderstanding. Suspects don’t realize we’re actually more interested in the admission of the crime itself than we are in the explanation.
It sounds like “yes, I did it but it was an accident” is a story more likely to hold together than is “I didn’t do it”
The problem is it’s far easier to convince yourself that the first story will result in your exoneration than it is to convince the prosecutor and the judge of the same thing. Especially easy if you’re not so bright to begin with and are real big on believing what’s convenient over what’s true.
I read David Simon’s book “Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets” a long time ago and one of the parts that stuck with me was when the detectives would convince a suspect that they were sympathetic but that the District Attorney wouldn’t be. Some of the suspects apparently believed that the police would be on their side if they could just explain how the victim had it coming.
The biggest thing I took away from that book is just how lucky society is that most criminals are stupid.
If if it’s a genuine accident (and it sometimes is), you’re far more likely to go to jail for something related to it if you try to cover it up, instead of notifying the authorities right away. I’ve learned from news articles that the police have all sorts of interesting laws at their disposal, such as “desecration of a corpse” or “improper burial” or some such thing.
We aren’t well equipped to deal with liars. We’re pack animals, and human society is based on trust. Tribal societies (like the police?) are based on trust inside the tribe, and distrust outside the tribe, but trading societies work on a high level of general trust.
Are you SURE you mean the 6th amendment?
Here’s a trick to separate stories that are true from stories that are made-up.
Let the person explain what happened. Allow him time to say everything he wants in detail.
When he’s done, say something like “I want to make sure I understand it all. So what you’re saying is…” and then repeat his story back to him. Act like you’re finding it plausible.
But here’s the trick; change something in the story you repeat back to him.
Most of the time, if he’s telling you the truth, he will want you to understand what actually happened. So when you make a mistake and change something, he will correct you.
But if he made up his story, he knows the facts aren’t there. He’s just trying to convince you. So when you tell him a different version of his story but seem to be believing it, he’s just as happy with you believing this new version as he was with you believing the version he told you.
I meanT the 5th admendment BUT* THAT WOULD BE WRONG TOO.
HERE’S WHAT YOU SHOULD DO: DO NOT PLEAD THE 5TH. ACCORDING TO JAMES DUANE, IN THE SELENA SCOTUS DECISION, PLEADING THE 5TH CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU.
THUS, DO NOT INSIST ON YOUR RIGHT TO SILENCE, DO NOT PLEAD THE 5TH—INSTEAD JUST ASK FOR A LAWYER.
JUST KEEP ASKING FOR A LAWYER. DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, DO NOT BE RUDE, JUST KEEP ASKING FOR A LAWYER AND KINDLY ASK THE COPS TO LEAVE YOUR HOUSE BUT ALWAYS BE KIND.
“officer, I’m waiting for a lawyer----will you kindly leave my house, I have to get back to my chores.”
“OFFICER, I’M WAITING FOR A LAWYER.”
“OFFICER, I’M WAITING FOR A LAWYER.”
“OFFICER, I’M WAITING FOR A LAWYER.”
Yes, but I was referring to members of the police force who just want to be your friend and to help you out of this difficult situation where your girlfriend is dead…
Bad on two grounds:
-
Prosecutor cannot testify. Only a witness can testify. So the prosecutor can only say that if a witness will testify to that effect. Which leads to:
-
Commenting on fact that accused exercised right to silence is a breach of due process, contrary to the 5th and 14th Amendments, so no witness can testify to it, and the prosecutor cannot comment on it.
by asking for a lawyer, you are volunteering absolutely the minimal amount of information. Saying absolutely anything else would be inadvertently volunteering information.
In particular, you DO NOT want to volunteer that you know this person. Do not volunteer the information that you were at a particular place, or not at a particular place, etc. etc.
JUST ASK FOR YOUR LAWYER, END OF STORY.
Except if you actually are guilty of murder then you should talk to the police and try to explain yourself by giving them all the info about what happened. Because you are guilty and should go to jail.