Talking to the (fake for television) judge and hanging yourself (27s):
There are longer and better quality versions with more before and after, easy to find.
Sorry that was Rickjay In post 71. I got confused because of the similar opinion expressed, my mistake. But still: where in your training were you instructed that those who lawyer up are to be automatically considered suspects, and why do all the other cops and lawyers say otherwise?
Little_Nemo and Whack-a-mole might be talking about 2 different hypothetical scenarios: one where there are no suspects yet (the frat party) and another (from the long video) where there are. Not sure if that is causing any confusion. But:
In neither case would the suspect know whether or not they were suspected. They aren’t going to be told that there is a witness saying they recognized their picture in the one case, or that there are not suspects yet in the other. Plus, Cops lie all the time so how on earth is a person supposed to “use their intelligence” to determine what the police have already established but kept secret from them?
Naw, just to the “smartass” category. People do this all the time. It is normal.
Now, some capos think that can "cold read’ suspect and know if they are lying. Certainly, many people have tells. And if that cop thinks you are acting guilty, then you have moved into the “person on interest” category.
Yeah, in order to arrest you in your house they have to have a warrant or a "clear and present danger’ like screaming, shots fired, etc.
Lie Detectors are fake. The tech decides if you are guilty depending more on what he thinks are your “tells”. Then he shpws you a blip and sez “this shows you are lying”.
Indeed…the police will make a point of not letting you think you are a suspect. They can lie as much as they want. They never start out with, “You are a suspect, you should get a lawyer before we talk to you.”
Or say - the ACLU:
## Do I have to answer questions asked by law enforcement officers?
No. You have the constitutional right to remain silent. In general, you do not have to talk to law enforcement officers (or anyone else), even if you do not feel free to walk away from the officer, you are arrested, or you are in jail. You cannot be punished for refusing to answer a question. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer before agreeing to answer questions…
### What to do if you are arrested or detained
** Say you wish to remain silent and ask for a lawyer immediately. Don’t give any explanations or excuses. Don’t say anything, sign anything, or make any decisions without a lawyer*
5 Reasons to Ask for a Lawyer when questioned by Law Enforcement | Ferah Ozbek.
Why do so many people want to talk to the police when they are questioned?
- Because they want to prove they are innocent. They want to be cooperative and tell the police they are innocent….because they are innocent.
Always be respectful to law enforcement, but DO NOT try to prove you are innocent. Do not talk to the police.
- Because they think that if they ask for a lawyer, the police will think they are guilty.
This is not true. It is ALWAYS smart to ask for a lawyer.
- Because they want to tell their story.
Don’t tell your story to the police. After you speak to your lawyer, you can talk about how to tell your story.
Ok, here are the 5 Reasons you should NOT talk to law enforcement personnel when questioned about a crime you are suspected of committing:
- There is NO way it can help
There is no way you can talk yourself out of being arrested. You will never meet a defense attorney who has said: “Thank God my client talked to the police.”
- Even if you are innocent and you deny your guilt and tell the truth, you can easily get carried away and tell some little lie or make a mistake that will hang you later.
Won’t it make me look guilty if I don’t talk to police?
Absolutely not. It will make you look smart. The judges, prosecutors, and police officers all know the rules. If they were ever accused of a crime, the first thing they would do is pick up a phone and call a lawyer. This is a constitutional right and a protection you should enforce. Once you obtain a lawyer, that lawyer acts as a buffer between you and the police or prosecution. We can get your story across and any information that is helpful to you, but the State can’t use it against you. In other words, no police officer can take the stand and testify that your lawyer said that you admitted or confessed to committing a crime or made any incriminating admissions. Additionally, the prosecutor cannot tell the jury that you didn’t talk to police. They can’t even mention it.
I don’t know if it’s 90% but there are definitely a lot of false confessions in which police officers take advantage of vulnerable suspects who naively believe that full cooperation with police will help their cause.
In some instances, the suspects don’t initially volunteer information but might break down under excessive (potentially unlawful) detention.
It’s also fairly well documented that false confessions are the result of police deliberately preying upon suspects they perceive as being fairly easy to convict. Factors include being young, being from a poor household, having a low level of education, having cognitive deficits, having mental illness, and having prior brushes with the law.
Using a combination of good-cop, bad-cop tactics, they manipulate and even gaslight their detainees. “Hey, look, you probably blacked out and don’t remember killing him - you blacked out because of your conscience. See, I think you’re actually a good young guy. You were angry and frustrated - anybody could snap if they’re pushed around enough. You’re not like the real animals we see in here. Listen, if you just work with us, I can talk to the DA. He’s reasonable. You could be out in 10 years, maybe 5 with good behavior. But we’ve already got all the evidence we need for a conviction. You take this to trial…you’ll never see your family again. And uh, in prison…people like you are the lowest of the low. It’ll be hell.”
What Dept were you with? State? Local? Feds?
Now, the FBI and DEA guys did all the arresting, so I never read anyone their rights. But they often did, and people sometimes asked for a lawyer. And I never once heard them say “Hmm, he lawyered up, maybe he is guilty”. More like “The asshole lawyered up, damnit, now we’ll never get anything out of him.”
In the ideal world? What would happen would be that no testimony from the interrogation was admissible, since the evidence didn’t exist.
In the real world, of course, it doesn’t work that way, because justice isn’t the real-world purpose of the police.
Because the recording as a whole is hearsay, if the purpose is to admit it for the proof of the statements. It is an out of court statement, not under oath, and was not subject to cross-examination at the time the statements were made.
Parts of it may be admissible under various exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as if the accused makes an admission against interest.
It could potentially be admitted at a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence, if the defence mounts the argument that the video shows abusive conduct by the police leading to a confession or an admission.
I admit I do not understand the hearsay rule in the courts.
It seems you are saying a police officer can testify in court to what you said while they were interviewing you but, for some reason, video of that interview is hearsay.
I don’t get it.
That was a really interesting video so thanks for posting it. I watched the whole thing.
What I don’t understand is why a prosecutor can use what you say during an interrogation against you, but defense can’t use it to exonerate you. What is the reasoning behind that law? It seems like a total double standard.
I’m also a person who has been trained to comply with police and don’t really consider myself at high risk for police abuse given that I’m a middle class white woman. But that video shows how good cops can make mistakes that hang cooperative witnesses.
I’m remembering the last interaction I had with police. Our neighbor reported a theft. Our neighbor is a paranoid schizophrenic. The police officer asked to come in, and we let him. He told us the neighbor reported a theft and asked if we saw anything suspicious. Then he kind of implied he wasn’t taking the claim seriously at which point we told him that the guy had delusions, was once convinced my husband had shot me, and the time before that accused my husband of making harassing phone calls. Looking back on that we probably gave him a lot more than we needed to. I’m a compulsively honest person, it’s really hard for me to do anything contentious or disagreeable or that might make me appear suspicious. But that video does give me pause.
Remember not talking is not being dishonest.
In the video the attorney notes there is plenty of time for you to tell your story. There is no rush in most cases. No one is asking for dishonesty. Just give yourself some time to consult an attorney.
The basic principle is that an out-of-court statement, not under oath, and not subject to cross-examination at the time it was said, is hearsay and thus inadmissible. The reason for this approach is one of reliability. How can the trier of fact rely on it, if X says that Y said something? If Y wants to put that in evidence, Y should testify, and be subject to cross-examination in front of the jury or judge, who can assess Y’s credibility.
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. One is if a person makes a statement against interest, an admission. The reasoning is that if a person actually admits something that is against that person’s interest, that carries with it a substantial indicator of reliability. If a person admits to having done something bad, that can be counted against them.
The rule isn’t specifically relating to the situation of an accused. Any party who makes an admission against interest, in criminal or civil matters, can have that entered in evidence against them. It the police officer conducting the examination says something that suggests he has beaten a confession out of people, or is a racist, like the cop in the OJ trial, that can be held against the officer in assessing their credibility.
I don’t know how it works in the States, but in Anglo-Canadian common law, there is an additional requirement before an admission from an accused can be admitted. There is a confessions rule, which requires the Crown to prove that the admission was freely given, without fear or favour as a result of the conduct of a person in authority. So if the interrogating officer says something like “If you talk to me I can put in a good word about sentence to the Crown, but if you don’t talk to me, God help you when the Crown is making sentence submissions.” That would be a combined offer of a benefit if the accused speaks, and a punishment if the accused doesn’t speak, and would render any admission inadmissible.
That’s in addition to the police duty to warn the individual of their Charter right to speak to counsel. If the police don’t follow that requirement, anything the accused says can be ruled inadmissible.
Why can’t a video or audio recording of the interview be used as evidence in a trial?
Because the opposing counsel cannot cross-examine a videotape.