I am not your lawyer, you are not my client, and I am not giving you legal advice. That said, you are very unlikely to get yourself released from the police interrogation by talking to them without a lawyer. And there are no deals that the police will give you that the prosecutor can’t. If it were me, I would not say a word unless my lawyer told me to. The police are not trying to help you out by interrogating you. They are trying to build a case. If they can implicate you, they will.
In fact, aren’t the police powerless to offer you a binding deal?
How many walk out? very few. I’m constantly amazed how many people tell the police information which essentially convicts them, even in situations where the police don’t even ask or suspect. I wouldn’t believe it, but I’ve seen it on video and with police officers I know and trust over and over. Guy gets pulled over for speeding, Officer asks to see his driver’s liscence, and guy says “by the way, I’ve got meth in the trunk.” I’ve seen it over and over, still have a hard time believing it.
But to answer more directly - few leave, the statements never get thrown out - that’s why the police continue to use the tactic.
I’ve never had an officer who used this tactic arrest them while they are leaving. I have, however, had many many officers arrest them later that night or two days later.
Actually, many of these interviews are audio or video taped. Also, I’ve never had a client even claim that they were arrested after such an interview. My take is that the police around here love this tactic, find it to be effective, and don’t want to jeopardize it with unfavorable court rulings. Of course, they don’t use it if they think the suspect is dangerous or a flight risk - them they arrest and mirandize.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
The general idea is that the Fifth Amendment protects your right to remain silent, but that this protection isn’t meaningful unless you’re aware of it, and when you’re in custody, an inherently coercive situation, you may well feel that you have no choice but to talk. So, as a prophylactic rule, any statements you make in custody are inadmissible unless you’ve been explicitly informed that you have the right to remain silent. [:quote]
Thanks, but I must admit the reason is appears so important to americans stil escape me. If someone doesn’t want to speak, isn’t it what is going to do, whether or not he’s informed he can stay silent? Well…upon reflexion, I supose they could indeed think that not answering at all could be in itself a punishable offense…
Sorry, I meant here, in France. Though a police officer could testify that you admitted to the crime, so it’s not unsignificant at all, indeed, the reference used in trials here is the “proces-verbal” (don’t know how to translate this), the written account of what you said, that you have to sign (IOW, you could say “I raped and murdered her” and then change your mind and refuse to sign the “proces-verbal” until your admission of guilt is removed from it).
A few years ago, I was working as the youth director of a local church in Little Rock, Arkansas. I attempted to break up a fight between two of the youth by restraining one of them. Eventually, I called the police. When the cops came, they were very nice, but told me that I had NO RIGHT to lay a finger on the youth, even to prevent an immediate attack on church property. Sure enough, a few weeks later, I got a letter or telephone call from a police investigator telling me that I was being investigated for the incident. I agreed to meet with the investigator.
When the investigator showed up, he explained that he was not a police officer, but was an investigator investigating the case on there behalf. Then he proceded to Mirandize me. I was surprised, since I had thought (correctly, it seems) that this was only necessary if was under arrest, and I had freely agreed to meet and answer any questions. Nevertheless, when he got to the part about having the right to an attorney, and one being provided for me if I could not afford one, I decided that sounded like a good idea. (After all, they offered!)
I told the investigator that as a college student (at the time) I couldn’t afford an attorney, but if they were going to give me the right to pe provided one, I’d take it. At this point, the investigator told me that he never actually had anyone invoke this right before, and had no idea what was to happen next. He said that he would find out and get back to me. I never saw or heard from him again.
A few weeks later, I got a letter in the mail stating that the police had completed their investigation. Furthermore, although they had decided not to prefer charges aginst me, they had concluded that a true report of child abuse had been filed against me, and that my name had been added to a sealed list of such people. Since no charges were prefered, and no penalty enacted, there was no requirement for a trial to take place, although I was given the right to appeal within a set number of days. I intended to, but became quite depressed by the whole incident and never did. I wrote about it at the time on these message boards, but it might have been before the Great Purge.
The irony, of course, is that if I had waived my rights, I would have given them my side of the story and everything might have been dropped. (Then again, they might have put me away! :eek: )
to alan smithee: it sounds like this could open another thread. but do you really mean you were threatened with a child abuse charge for separating two children who were fighting? even though you were actually there as a church youth director (which presumably means you were responsible for the kids’ care and safety)? would the lawyers care to comment? if you are a teacher, a chaperone (or just a citizen passing by), what can you do to prevent a child from hurting himself or someone else? for that matter, if you step up to break up a fight between adults, or to protect someone who obviously is getting the worst of it, are you liable to charges? no wonder nobody wants to “get involved.”
IANAL etc. but my understanding is that it’s fairly standard across the country that one is legally allowed to use “reasonable force” in the defense of oneself, one’s property or others. The question becomes whether the force used is “reasonable,” which would ultimately be a question for a jury to decide.
clairobscur, to really understand what the Supreme Court was concerned with, read Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). You might also read the synopsis of the development of the applicable law here.
America’s court system has developed as part of our idea of what a “fair” system is the concept that criminals should be convicted not as a result of attempting to convince them to admit of guilt, but rather by convincing the jury of their peers that the evidence establishes their guilt. This evidence provided to the jury is obtained without requiring the accused to co-operate with the state. If the state is unable to obtain enough evidence to accomplish this goal, the accused stays free. But the state does not have the ability to put the accused under bright lights in an attempt to co-erce a confession.
In Miranda, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether or not police could interrogate a suspect under custody, that is, a person who is not free to leave, but must remain with the police, without the police first advising the suspect that he/she was not required to say anything. It was the opinion of the Court that the situation described is so inherently co-ercive that the suspect is unlikely to resort to the refuge of silence, unless he has been reminded that he has this option. This, the Court felt, was not “fair” as our system has been developed.
Now lest you think in naivete that a person who wants to remain silent is likely to anyway, even without his rights being read to him, just take a meander through post-Miranda cases which have fleshed out when and how the warnings mandated by the Court in Miranda must be given. You’d be surprised at the creative ways police can persuade someone to provide incriminating information even when the suspect is clearly initially determined not to talk about it.
The short answer is yes, they would need to involve the prosecutor.
A good point. I had thought about that. I wonder how many jurisdictions follow this procedure. It can certainly benefit the policy by providing unbiased evidence of what really happened during the interview. OTOH, in a law school class we heard a horrific interrogation tape. Pretty scary stuff. And the police knew the tape was running.
Good to know about your clients’ experience with arrest after those interviews.
I wouldn’t say they “threatened” me with charges. Someone filed a complaint, they investigated. If they really thought I had done something, I’m sure they would have taken it further. As it happened, I refused to give my side, so the investigation came down to their word against . . . nothing.
The record is sealed. I forget the details, but I think it might disappear after a certain number of years. I have passed police background checks to work with children since then. As long as I don’t get arrested for child abuse in AR in the future or apply to work for DHS, it doesn’t really affect me. (Though I probably shouldn’t plan on running for President or being appointed to the Supreme Court.)
Well, if you appear before a judge, at least if you are a witness, you are generally required to answer any questions, and truthfully, with few exceptions (no need to incriminate yourself or close family members). You can be penalised for failing to cooperate. True, it is easy to weasel out as a witness, just say “I cannot remember.”, but at least you have to say something.
I can see how someone could mistakenly think that this is valid for any kind of authority, including the police.
Say, MartinL, would you care to remind me what law or rule of evidence gives me the privilege not to incriminate my close family members? I agree, of course, that as a witness at trial I can’t be forced to incriminate myself, and in many jurisdictions my wife is also safe. But “close family members” is a rule that I just don’t recall. Can you explain?
Just wondering…if I were to visit the US and get arrested, do I have any rights at all? Would the procedure be similar, or can they just lock me up and throw away the key? I’m from the UK, if that makes a difference.
Nonsense. The public defenders I have known have been excellent lawyers. I think you’ll find that especially in rural areas with low caseloads and with a state public defender’s office, you can get very good counsel. The problem is that they often end up with the most hopeless cases.
I would have high confidence in attorneys of agencies such as the Ohio Office of the Public Defender. They are quite confident and reasonably well-funded.
It’s in states (such as Texas, I think, and several other southern states) where they don’t have full-time public defenders, but instead have an “appointed counsel” system, where I would fear the quality of counsel. You’re likely to end up with someone who is an inexperienced lawyer in general, someone who is inexperienced in criminal law or your particular kind of case, or someone who has no interest in defending you competently.
Even if your not guilty of anything at all, shut up. You will never help yourself by talking to the police without counsel.
It was my intention not to be perfectly precise at that point. As you have indicated yourself, just exactly what persons are safe may vary between jurisdictions. In some places (at least in Europe), parents, children, siblings, sometimes even grandparents and -children are safe. Other places are more strict and only protect your spouse or only you alone. Since I mentioned it merely as an aside, I did not see any necessity to be too specific, and referred to the general idea behind these rules instead.
Appointed counsel generally works fine; inexperienced lawyers don’t get appointed to cases above their experience level. I, for example, can be appointed for misdemeanors and felonies of up to a certain level, but not, say, first degree felonies or capital murder, as the judges in charge of court appointments have not yet found me experienced enough to take on those kinds of cases. To my thinking this is no different than the DA or Public Defender assigning misdemeanors and lower level felonies to the less experienced assistant DAs and Public Defenders.
Lawyers generally take just as much an interest in competent representation of court appointments as they do paying clients, because (1) they have a professional responsibility to do so, and (2) it’s not like they’re not getting paid at all. The state or county reimburses them for their time and expenses, and although you don’t make quite as much as if you’d been hired, you don’t have to send the county treasurer nasty letters to get paid, either.
I see.
Well, since the OP mentioned the words of the famous Miranda warning, I assumed we were discussing US federal and state interrogations. I didn’t even think of the rules that might apply in Europe.
To keep the record straight: within the United States, I am unaware of any juridsdiction that allows a privilege against incriminating “close family members” other than a spouse. Indeed, even in the case of a spouse, what’s protected is not “incrimination,” but confidential spousal communication. So even in a state that has the spousal privilege, a husband may be compelled to testify that he saw his wife commit a crime, or even that she confessed to him after the fact if someone else was also privvy to the conversation. The privilege does not exist when the communication is not private.
As I say, I’m unaware of what the rules may be in other countries. It would be interesting to see an overview.
- Rick
This doesn’t gel with my understanding of the spousal privilege. Unlike the physician-patient privilege (where it exists), which protects only communications regarding a specific topic (that is, medical information), the spousal privilege is a blanket privilege that covers all communications made within the context of a spousal relationship, regardless of the topic. If it were otherwise, it would hardly be a consequential privilege at all.