In this popular web video of Don’t talk to the police, the first reason that the professor gives (around 9:00) is “It can’t help.” The reasoning is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence, anything said to an officer that might help the defendant’s case would be considered hearsay according to 801(d)(2)(A). Quick googling show that this passage says:
From here. Given that the section is exceptions to the hearsay rule, why would statements made to the police be inadmissable? Is the speaker quoting the wrong rule (unlikely) or am I missing something? (highly likely)
I am not asking for legal advice. I am not your client. You are not my attorney. I realize that I should give up. I shouldn’t talk to police unless I’m a witness and not a suspect.
I’ll admit I didn’t watch the video but an argument that “hearsay” won’t help a police investigation because of legal limitations is absurd. Hearsay may be inadmissable as evidence in court but there’s a much lower standard for a police investigation - most likely reasonable grounds. And somebody telling a police officer that they’ve heard a rumor about who committed a crime would be reasonable grounds for the police to investigate.
I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. He was stating that any admission to the police can’t help the defendant in a court of law, not that it can’t help the police.
If you say something to the police, opines the professor, it likely can’t help you.
In the exceptions you list, which one would help you?
Not applicable – this is a statement by the side of the road, not a prior statement under oath.
Here there’s some faint possibility of help, but not in the vast majority of cases. You’re allowed to introduce your prior statement to rebut the inference of recent fabrication – in other words, if you said something before you had a motive to lie, you’re allowed to bring it up after you had the motive to lie to show that you were saying it before you knew it would help you. When talking to a police officer investigating a crime, in general you already have a self-serving motive to lie, so your statement made then can’t rebut a motive to lie now… you laready had the motive then, when you first made the statement.
Not applicable here; we’re not talking about merely identifying someone.
This is admissble, yes, but it doesn’t help you, since it specifies that the statement must be AGAINST you. If the statement works in your favor, it’s not against you, and isn’t covered by the rule.
I haven’t seen the video in a while, so I might be off base here…
I think the gist of it is that, as the defendant, a statement that you make out of court, which is later offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally hearsay and inadmissible.
One way around that is that admissions by a party opponent are admissible.
EXAMPLE 1: The defendant says to the cop out of court, “When I went through the light, the light was red.”
The prosecution wants to try to prove the color of the light at the time the defendant entered the intersection. The prosecution can call the cop to testify that the defendant said that because it is an admission against a party opponent.
EXAMPLE 2: Change the defendant’s statement to the cop to say, “When I went through the light, the light was green.”
The prosecution cannot have the cop testify now because that statement is hearsay. It is admissible as an admission against a party opponent in EXAMPLE 1, but inadmissible in EXAMPLE 2 because the statement offered is not being used as an admission AGAINST the defendant. The statement in EXAMPLE 2 favors the defendant.
So, EXAMPLE 1 cannot help the defendant because it is admissible as an admission against the defendant. EXAMPLE 2 also cannot help the defendant because it is inadmissible hearsay if the cop is called to testify as to what the defendant said.
Thanks Bricker and Bearflag70. I see how the rule applies or doesn’t apply now. What I don’t understand is why the rule exists. What underlying legal principle is it that says that the police should withhold potentially exculpatory evidence from a jury? Why does the “for/against” nature of the evidence determine if it’s hearsay?
We don’t expect declarants to falsify their reports in a way that harms their interests, so party admissions that work against that party are reliable in a way that self-serving out-of-court statements are not.
Additionally, if the accused said something during the interrogation that he wants to get to the jury, he can testify to it. This will subject him to cross-examination, of course, but it’s not as if the accused is utterly without recourse.
As pointed out, the hearsay rule basically comes down to the supposed unreliability of out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Society has decided those kinds of statements are not reliable enough to be permitted to use in court. The various exceptions to the rule are generally premised upon the notion that certain kinds of out of court statements ARE indeed reliable enough to justify an exception to the hearsay rule.
Admissions against a party opponent are more likely to be true than other kinds of statements because a party doesn’t typically admit things that could be used against him or her later unless those things asserted are true.
A party admitting out of court that he ran his own red light is more likely true than not, so EXAMPLE 1 is admissible due to the inherent reliability of the statement.
A party claiming his own light was green is not so reliable because the statement could be a self-serving lie. EXAMPLE 2 is inadmissible hearsay.
So ISTM that the only thing you should say to the police is, “I didn’t do it” since you know it can’t be used either for or against you and “I want to talk to my lawyer”.
Police are human too. It’s better to get on their good side than bad. Asking for your lawyer right off the bat makes you seem uncooperative. Better to explain that you didn’t do it, then ask for a lawyer if the questions become more intense. I don’t see any harm at all in saying “I didn’t do it”
You don’t see the harm, but there might be harm. You don’t know what they know, you think the police are going to spill w/ 100% truthfulness to their suspect? Hahahaha.
Most people have absolutely no idea what will be good or bad for their case later on. Therefore, they should say nothing other than
Am I free to leave? (if they are not sure whether or not they are presently being arrested)
I want to speak to a lawyer.
My father in law, who is retired Detroit-area police, taught my husband the very same thing as a lad. Nothing I learned in law school, or in working for the local public defender, disproved the wisdom of his advice.
OTOH, while I could see keeping my mouth shut if I was suspected of something serious, I doubt pleading the fifth and requesting a lawyer on a traffic ticket stop on the side of the road is the wise thing to do.
That being said, my dad bounced many a speeding ticket by threatening (by mail) to go to court over them, so who knows.
I don’t see how telling them you didn’t do anything can hurt. So what if they dont’ tell you anything? Saying you didn’t do it cannot be used against you unless you did do it. Or maybe you’re afraid they’re going to tape your conservation and then edit the words together to make a confession? That’s insane
Ok, so you tell the police you didn’t do it. You don’t say anything else (because anything else could work against you- you’re better off giving no information rather than slightly incorrect information) What do you gain? Nothing. If there’s enough evidence to arrest you, your denial is not going to outweigh the evidence and you’ll be arrested. If there’s not enough evidence, you won’t be arrested whether you deny wrongdoing or not. It simply makes no difference in the best case scenario- and I personally have never seen that best case scenario happen. Nobody says “I didn’t do it” and stops answering questions. Like the professor says in the video " What’s the rush?"
Maybe it isn’t. Maybe this cop is convinced that you are guilty. You don’t want on his good side; you want on his bad side. He is your enemy is this circumstance. You certainly not only want to seem, but you definitely want to BE uncooperative in this situation.
The cops do this all of the time. Chances are none of us will every go through it. They will use psychological tricks to make you think that you two are friends and pretty soon, you have said many things that seem incriminating (because they frame the questions that way). They have an advantage in this little game that you or I can’t touch.
Don’t play with fire. Step back and call a pro (a lawyer) to advise you how best to proceed.
To add to this, has anyone ever watched The First 48 (a documentary show about murder investigations)? Nine out of ten times, the cops take the suspect into custody and then act like by cooperating with them the suspect can solve all his problems. Of course, when a suspect cooperates and talks to them, the only people who’s problem actually gets solved are the cops. Once he gets his confession he walks out of the room and the guy gets shipped off to jail to await trial.
