Yes, but you didn’t only hear one side of the case. If there was an eyewitness to the murder, what exactly do you think would be the other side? Put a guy on the stand who didn’t see the murder?
If the prosecution puts forward a witness who says “I saw the defendant shoot the victim with a pistol”, the time for the defense to “give the other side” is when that witness is on the stand. “Were you drunk, was it dark, isn’t it true you told the cops a different story on the night in question…” and so on. There’s usually no point in putting the defendant on the stand to declare that what the witness said was bullshit, because it doesn’t add anything to the defense.
Of course the defendant is going to deny committing the crime. Getting up on the stand and denying it doesn’t help. If you did it, you’d lie about doing it. It just gives the jury a chance to wonder how believable he was when he denied it.
I’ve also served on a jury where the defendant didn’t say a word. Which was smart on his part, because he was guilty of stealing some shit, the only question was over the value of the shit he stole, if it was valued one way
it would be 2nd degree mopery, valued another way it would be 3rd degree mopery. However, the prosecutor still had to put on the whole case showing that he did in fact take the stuff, even though the defense didn’t bother to try to deny it, although they didn’t admit it either.
Point is, sometimes when you shoot somebody there isn’t a whole lot you can do to present the other side of the story, because there is no other side to the story.
In this case, the other side was that the eyewitnesses were both drunk and high, and were testifying under duress while incarcerated for other offenses. Apparently the defense attorney thought this was enough to discredit them without having to put on a defense. Unfortunately, we still believed them (mainly because they ran to inform a nearby police officer within minutes of the crime, even though they were drunk and high).
Also, it was a stabbing, with a large bloody kitchen knife that we got to see in a very dramatic moment straight out of an episode of Law & Order. But that’s not really relevant.
Sure, but in your case the other side of the story was “You guys were drunk and high, right?” But the other other side of the story was “Yeah, I was drunk and high, but I still saw him stab that dude.”
I guess I’m trying to imagine what you wish the defense attorney had done. Put the defendant on the stand to say “Naw, I didn’t stab nobody”? Would you have believed that?
The problem for the defense is that the defendant probably really did stab some dude, and so there was a ton of evidence for that, and not many ways to rebut that evidence. The overwhelming evidence against the defendant was probably because he really did stab somebody. Maybe he was just the victim of some really bad luck or malicious cops, but probably not. So now what?
I’d assume that if the defendant himself was set on pleading “not guilty” and going to trial, his attorney is pretty much going to have to do what can be done. in this case, the only possible way to sow reasonable doubt would be to try to question the reliability of the witnesses.
it’s kind of like a case I was called for jury selection this year. I didn’t get seated, but with what they explained to us is that it was a case with no witnesses or physical evidence, just a victim’s testimony against the defendant. and it was clear the defense attorney’s strategy was to try to sow doubt in the jurors’ minds about the testimony (inaccurate memories, “coached” untruthfulness, etc.)
didn’t work, though, I looked up the docket a while later and the defendant had been convicted.
Yes you can. If you say you want a lawyer or you want to remain silent the interview is over. The investigator can’t continue to question hoping to break you down to then waive your rights. See Miranda v Arizona and Edwards v Arizona.
Could we get some clarification on this? I thought the 5th Amendment and waiving one’s rights under it were issues that come up in giving court testimony or other sworn testimony like before a grand jury or in a deposition. You can’t selectively choose which questions answer, so you must answer all or none.
In contrast, when being questioned by police, doesn’t the subject have the right to answer whichever questions he wants, if any, and to refuse to answer questions, and to cease answering any questions at any time — all having nothing to do with the 5th Amendment? You simply don’t have to tell cops anything you don’t want to tell them (beyond basic ID type of stuff). Is that correct? Or, once you start talking, do you lose the right to stop talking?
(ETA: Absent any complaint that the subject was coerced or intimidated into answering questions, which is what Miranda was originally all about.)
A criminal defendant can exercise the Fifth to refuse to take the stand at all, or only refuse to answer incriminating questions. The latter is generally not a good idea from a tactical perspective.
I’m not sure what you want clarified. I was answering another poster who claimed investigators can continue to question even after someone says they want a lawyer or that they don’t want to talk.
The 5th amendment gives you the right to not be compelled to self incriminate. How that is handled in different situations such as police interviews or court testimony is a matter of caselaw. There are no magic words needed to invoke your rights. The 5th amendment exists even if you don’t know it does. You don’t have to mention the 5th to benefit from it. In a formal court setting (or congress) with a subpoenaed WITNESS a specific declaration is going to be needed since they are being compelled to speak. You can’t compel a suspect or defendant to speak. He can say no at the beginning. He can talk for an hour and then ask for a lawyer. He can refuse to answer certain questions. If the subject doesn’t say he no longer wants to talk they can continue to ask the questions but there is nothing compelling them to answer anything specific.
An additional point is that the duty of the police to stop questioning when the accused asks for a lawyer isn’t just about the right to silence, under the 5th Amendment.
That duty to stop the interview is also part of the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of the assistance of counsel.
You are probably thinking of Berghuis v Thompkins (Berghuis v. Thompkins - Wikipedia). The defendant was interrogated for several hours and basically said nothing apart from a few short phrases, but finally broke down and confessed. The Supremes ruled, 5-4 on predictable lines, that the mere act of not speaking does not invoke your right to remain silent.