Thinking of this thread about when to exercise your right to remain silent, what advice to the experts give if you are being interviewed as a *witness * to a crime, rather than as a suspect?
I watched those videos too, and I was thinking the EXACT same thing.
I don’t really want to incriminate myself, but I also don’t want to hold back information that might be important to solving a crime.
It’s a judgment call. I believe you have a moral if not a legal duty to help police prevent crimes before they happen, and to provide info to help solve them after they’ve occurred. But you must be careful not to incriminate yourself, which you may inadvertently do. Also, an incompetent, lazy or malicious police officer - of which, I’m sorry to say, there are some - may take what you say and decide you make a better suspect than the person you know or strongly believe ought to be. It’s a very difficult decision, and you must decide for yourself based upon the circumstances and your assessment of the police officer (which may very well be mistaken). Be careful.
FWIW, I’m a former prosecutor, current magistrate.
But based on the video the OP references, we shouldn’t ever talk to the police without immunity. His basic premise is that you can’t ever say anything that will help you; you can only say things that will hurt you - even if you are innocent.
I believe one example he gives is someone who tells only the truth with no exaggeration. Something like this…
“I wasn’t in Virginia Beach on August 1st. I don’t know anything about the murder. I don’t own a gun. I’ve never owned a gun; I’ve never even shot a gun! I never liked the guy, but I never wished or caused any harm upon him.”
Then the prosecutor would then get the cop on the stand and have him testify that our poor friend “never liked the guy.” And the professor then went on to say something about how that could be seen as a motive, and if opportunity could be shown as well, most juries would convict. Whereas if the guy just kept his mouth shut, he’d still be free.
In all cases, he’s innocent, but when he opens his mouth, he’s taking a risk which could have no reward.
logic mistake… err… can’t have any reward.
The OP is about witnesses, not suspects. I stand by my answer.
The reward could be solving the crime, getting a dangerous person off the streets, and getting closure for the victim. All of these things could benefit the witness.
I suppose I’m not representing the lecture correctly. The problem with talking (as a witness) is that you may become the suspect.
True. I should’ve said that there’s no legal reward; that is, you can’t say anything that would exonerate you. It would be dismissed as hearsay - again, according to the lecture/video. IANAL, obviously.
Self-serving, yes. Hearsay, no. If you became the defendant it would probably ultimately be deemed a “statement by a party/opponent” and thus admissible.
Look, the police very often rely on the assistance of witnesses to make their cases. Most defendants could not be convicted were it not for the testimony of witnesses (hence the unfortunate trend of “No snitching” T-shirts and witness intimidation in some big cities). It is not in law enforcement’s interests, or in any of our interests in street-level law and order, if no witness would talk to cops without a lawyer present. If the bad guy’s running away there may not even be time for that.
I thought this was interesting, and I looked up a couple of references on it. I haven’t seen the shirts but it seems like there is a difference between someone who is an innocent bystander and then witnesses a crime vs. someone who is a willing participant, in effect an undercover agent, who deceives the target with the intent of acting as a witness after the fact. One article I read on this describes the “snitches” as minor drug offenders who are recruited to catch the big fish. I can see why such people would be the subject of harassment or worse within the drug community. I suspect even the police don’t have much respect for these people even if they value the information they provide.
However, from the same article, I cannot for the life of me understand why “50 witnesses to the murder of a bodyguard for rapper Busta Rhymes have refused to cooperate with police, including Rhymes himself.” unless this is basically all-out war where a witness is certain to be the next murder victim.
Can you explain this? I was confused by the statement in the video referenced in the other thread that the police don’t have to have a recording or anything in writing. They just have to say, “He told me he did it.” Then it’s the suspect’s word against a policeman’s word. Why isn’t the policeman’s statement considered hearsay, but the same statement from another witness is? (In Perry Mason Law School 
I learned that hearsay is admissable only to establish the frame of mind of the person at the time; no idea of the truth of that.)
Hearsay is so complicated that even some lawyers get headaches over it. In essence, hearsay is an out-of-court statement by a witness which is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There are many exceptions.
If, in the case of State v. Dave Defendant, the prosecution wants to admit the statement of Wally Witness that “Dave told me he killed Vivian Victim” to show that Dave really did kill Vivian, and Wally is not himself available as a witness (dead, forgetful, willfully silent, on the lam, inexplicably absent), that statement would usually be inadmissible hearsay unless one of the exceptions applied.
One of the exceptions is the statement of a party-opponent. So if Dave himself after being Mirandized confessed to Dudley the Detective, “I killed Vivian,” and Dudley himself came into court to testify to that, it would be admissible. If Dave had instead said, “I didn’t kill Vivian,” it would also be admissible (but sure to be pooh-poohed by the prosecution as self-serving).
Your Perry Mason legal tidbit is incorrect. Hearsay, where admissible under the exceptions, can be used for all sorts of purposes. One of the most frequent is where it’s offered for its effect upon the listener, and not for the truth of the matter asserted: “So Dave told you he killed Vivian. After you heard that, what did you do next…?”
In Ohio at least, if you know a felony is being committed, and you do *not * report it, you can be charged with a misdemeanor crime:
Huh. I’ve never even heard of that law, and know no one who’s ever been charged with it.
sounds like it’s a codification of the old common law offence, misprison of felony.
I watched the video a few days ago and was meaning to ask about this.
I seem to recall the attorney mentioning that if Dave Defendant told the cop, “I did not shoot Vivian” and the cop was asked to testify to that statement the prosecution would challenge that as hearsay. I found that rather odd. An admission of guilt is admissible but a plea of innocence is hearsay?
No. Both are equally admissible, but will certainly be interpreted differently by opposing counsel.
I can see how an admission of guilt comes in, as a statement against interest. How does the statement of innocence come in, when re-told by the police officer?
It’s a statement of a party-opponent. If it’s a recorded recollection (as it will be, usually, such as in a police report), it must be read at the request of the opposing party if the proponent tries to selectively introduce just parts of the document:
When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which is otherwise admissible and which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. - Ohio Evid.R. 106.