Talking to the police does not necessarily lend itself to a more just determination of guilt. At trial, police and prosecutors can selectively present only those statements you made that point toward your guilt. And you cannot requite the officer to testify to statements you made during your interrogation that might be exculpatory, because it’s hearsay.
It’s helpful for society if you cooperate as a witness. There’s no harm in doing so, with a lawyer present, to advise you on what questions you shouldn’t answer. Example, if the police ask you where you were at the time the crime was committed, or the nature of your relationship to the victim, you don’t need to answer, and it’s not in your interests to do so. A lawyer is trained to recognize when lines of inquiry can lead to self-incrimination, and trained to know exactly what your rights are and remind you to assert them.
What if you’re in a Law & Order scenario where you DO have a lawyer present but the cops continue to talk to you not the lawyer and you wind up inadvertantly confessing your guilt while your lawyer meekly tells you not to talk?
Then you’re an idiot who doesn’t listen to your lawyer.
This. Your lawyer is there to advise you, not command you. If you don’t want to heed his advice, then that’s your call.
There are other reasons why you shouldn’t talk to police even if you are innocent as it almost always can be used against you.
See link below.
We all use L&O as an example, but you know who really ignored lawyerly-advice? Pretty much every suspect on Dragnet.
Friday: Do you understand these rights?
Suspect: Sure.
F: Do you wish to give up the right to remain silent?
S; Sure. You got me. [proceeds to confess to everything]
I mean, it was only a half-hour show, and not a lot of time for complex storytelling, but no wonder these perps had multiple convictions.
No shit! Read about Jodi Arias. She “planned” the murder right into a conviction. Taking pictures of the victim, and leaving your own camera at the crime scene! Brilliant!
Haven’t watched all of the vids, but a significant problem, as I see it, is you do not understand the reasons the cop is questioning you, the cop is allowed to lie, you do not have any control over how he/she will interpret/use what you say, you likely lack as much knowledge as the LEO as to the legal implications or all of the facts, …
You may think your behavior was completely reasonable and lawful. But you may have no idea what MIGHT be interpreted as supporting a charge against you. What you don’t say can’t be held against you - other than to possibly suggest an unwillingness to cooperate. But just about anything you DO say, might.
IMO, a lot of people who consider themselves honest, law abiding citizens view LEOs as well-intentioned and reasonable. Many folk think that if they only cooperate and explain things reasonably, any confusion/unpleasantness will disappear. But very often, SOMETHING you say will be the one piece needed to support a charge - or at the very least - additional investigation.
There are many reasons you should think carefully before inviting a LEO into your home, allowing them to search your vehicle/belongings, or even to answer much of anything other than your name, address.
Actually, he might have. 5th says you don’t have to incriminate yourself; 6th says you have the right to a speedy trial and to legal representation. “I’m not saying anything without a lawyer” is invoking the 6th.
No they were not put on “trial” as such but there were vilified in the press and their lives made hell.
I appreciate that, but if i am at, for example- the scene of a accident as a witness, I am not gonna call my lawyer and pay him to come out there while I tell the cops the black pickup ran the light and hit the blue sedan.
That is true.
As a “trained lawyer”, I have a dirty little secret - there’s no magic to us sitting in on an interrogation. It’s just we know 2 things:
-
Answering any particular question does not obligate you to answer any other particular question (e.g. say you are being questioned about a possible homicide. The question is where you were at the time of the offense, so you answer that you were not present at the scene of the attack. A natural follow up question would be to ask where you were; a lawyer may suggest you not answer that follow up - perhaps you were cheating on your spouse, or engaged in a low level drug deal. Just because you didn’t do the crime they are investigating doesn’t necessarily mean that you want to volunteer those details).
-
In the absence of a warrant, you can end the questioning at any time (I think most people would feel intimidated talking to the police, and there’s a general social conditioning to not be rude to people, so many who are speaking to the police may not feel entitled to walk out in the middle of a conversation)
…
Of course, the usual preference for a defense attorney is for the client to simply not say anything at all, and a person who might in fact be guilty is not doing themselves any favors by speaking to cops, even if it is in a narrow and limited capacity. A defense attorney is usually trying to get evidence thrown out. Plus, negotiations tend to be more fruitful with the prosecutor (who is expected to exercise discretion and not pursue cases where the evidence is weak) than with the police (who tends to be more interested in closing a case with an arrest, and letting others decide whether it warrants prosecution).
Uh, sure, if you can afford an attorney. One isn’t provided for you unless you’re under arrest.
“…one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.” Not just arrest.
And if you’re not under arrest, stop talking and leave.
There was one episode of either The Closer or Major Crimes where the team was frankly interrogating witnesses (not really suspects at this time) agressively. The cops were pressing hard. One of the group finally had enough and shouted “if you’d stop treating us like suspects and more like witnesses I might answer your questions!” (to be fair, at that point I wouldn’t have told the cops was time it was if they asked.)
Forget it Jake, it’s the Dope.
ISTR that bit is from the rights to be read when a person is arrested.
Hmmmm … considering the fact that cops lie all the time in their interrogations and sometimes are more conserned with a confession and not finding the guilty person, we may want to talk to those convicted on false confessions before making a statement like that.
Heh.
But there are certain Supervisors I limit my talk with because they act like they’re trying to frame you for murder.
IMHO the main reason [guilty] people talk to the police is ego. They think they can out smart the person interviewing them. The second reason is, in their mind they didn’t do anything wrong (that is not the same as being innocent).
Sorry, but that’s incorrect. You’re quoting from the Miranda Warning, and that only applies to people the police have in custody.
A police officer or other official must, by law, tell you the full Miranda warning before custodial interrogation starts. This type of interrogation happens when you are in police custody (when you have been arrested) and are being questioned.
My bolding. Source.