# Lawyer\> TV\> My client is not answering any more questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 15, 2015, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-tv-my-client-is-not-answering-any-more-questions/740504 "2015-12-15T05:27:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-tv-my-client-is-not-answering-any-more-questions/740504/81 "2015-12-21T14:13:43Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Well, no it isn’t, unless it’s also the definition of coercion if what I say in this post is persuasive. The rule isn’t that the police can’t take advantage of a suspect making a bad decision, or even that they can’t trick him into a bad decision. It’s that they can’t overcome his own free will and coerce him to speak. There’s an element of force there beyond the rhetorical. Well, it’s broader than force; they can’t withhold food or water, for example, or deprive the suspect of sleep (though they can question him for so long that that is arguably a meaningless rule itself). But if I may rephrase your point, the issue is that threats of actions that are legal (detaining the suspect overnight, prosecuting, etc.) are not coercion for Fifth Amendment purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-tv-my-client-is-not-answering-any-more-questions/740504/82 "2015-12-21T19:59:00Z")
Sounds good to me. What I mean to say is that on the spectrum of force, the conduct has to go beyond the rhetorical. ---
**Author:** ![busterpickle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/258eb7/32.png) [@busterpickle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/busterpickle)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-tv-my-client-is-not-answering-any-more-questions/740504/83 "2015-12-22T02:58:36Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > When was this, **pool**? During my entire time in service, if a First Sergeant (or anyone else in the accused’s chain of command) had done that (and by “that” I mean “spoke with you concerning the alleged offense without your legal representative present”), that person would be on the carpet in front of his superior so fast it would make gods blink. > > As you mention, the Army does have its own legal system; however, it is still based on the United States constitution. Dunno, I was in the Navy from 2002-2010 and I saw that happen often. There were no “legal beagles” on ship to come to your aid in helping one defend himself against an inquiry. The best you would have would be if you were enlisted is a legal yeoman (not even a paralegal, think administrative assistant) who would help you interpret the UCMJ and if you were an officer you would have a legal officer (like an actual lawyer person) help you with that. The only way to get any real help, especially if you were enlisted, would be to go off ship and get a JAG, which you would have to do all on your own. Hopefully your immediate chain of command will help you with that. UCMJ Article 31 protects against self-incrimination but rarely would that happen. As most were told you had to answer as it was a direct order. So, you’d go through the wringer of NJP, potentially loose rank, only to take it off ship and appeal. This process can take a year if not longer. And, if you are forward deployed or overseas, good luck. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lawyer-tv-my-client-is-not-answering-any-more-questions/740504.md?page=4)