I think “no”. What can be gained?
No one is saying “Don’t report a crime.” But you bleeding out on a front lawn is not the same as in the hospital (on drugs?) being questioned by police saying “Here’s my phone.”
And yeah, if you are bleeding out and they start interviewing you STFU. Cops love questioning people when they’re vunerable. If you come home and your wife’s torso is in your bed, he head on the nightstand and god know where her arms and legs are, then the cops WILL start questioning you then and there while you are still in shock over your discovery.
Sure, if you believe that you have exculpatory evidence that should put end to any legitimate investigation, you have a prepared statement, answer some specific questions (that the attorney goes over with you before hand), and any deviations are fielded by the lawyer, who will probably say, “My client declines to discuss issue,” or “I need to confer with my client.” As @Moriarty said, there is nothing your attorney can do to take back answers you’ve given, and what you may think is innocuous may be quite concerning to an attorney. But if you really have nothing to gain and no expectation that answering any questions will prevent a prosecutor from bringing forth charges, why give any testimony to police? You can present any information or testimony for the defense in pre-trial hearing or in trial instead of giving a precis for a prosecutor to review and pick apart at their leisure.
I hate to point at television characters as an example because they generally get so much totally wrong when it comes to legal proceedings and lawyerly activities, but “Saul Goodman”/“Slippin’” Jimmy McGill from Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul pretty much nails it in terms of how he advises and handles his clients and represents them in court. Don’t just take my word for it:
Stranger
In federal criminal cases, it is common for a defendant to make what’s called a “proffer”, which is basically going to the feds and ratting out people. A proffer can be a good way - oftentimes the only way - to get a break in sentencing. Being cooperative with law enforcement counts favorably on your scoresheet (e.g. federal sentences are determined by adding up a score from a chart, which corresponds to certain characteristics; using a weapon, for example, might add to your score. Being cooperative might reduce the total by 2), and it may result in the prosecutor agreeing to amend the charge to something less serious.
(This same type of scenario can and does also exist at the state level, although it seems like the feds love to plea bargain a lot more).
So there might be a reason to go into the interrogation room and provide info (I’ve been in one where the client was explaining to everybody how the secret drug compartment in his car’s dash can be opened. It was some elaborate magnet thing).
But, a lawyer should only coordinate a proffer when they have it in writing what the prosecutor is offering and if the client is aware of, and agreeable to, the fact that they are getting a break as a condition of admitting their involvement and thereby incriminating themselves.
If you are intending to fight the charges, instead, it’s not going to be a good idea. That’s not to say it is never done - I’ve been on cases where a prior attorney brought the suspect to the police, or let them speak at a pretrial hearing (say, to reduce bail). But then you get a client telling some version of their story which becomes locked in (I’m watching the old interview because it was video recorded, or I’m reading the old court hearing transcript) despite the very real expectation that new and/or additional evidence might come forward that makes this story hard to reconcile. Then even later attempts to clarify what might be an innocent or sincere mistake looks like dissembling or dishonesty.
So what about a situation like the aftermath of the on-set accident with Alec Baldwin that is currently playing out, without getting side tracked by the details (plenty of discussion here if you want them) there was a terrible accident with a firearm on set that killed the DP, everyone and their dog seems to think the Assistant Director and Armorer are looking at manslaughter charges though currently the DA has not moved in that direction (no one is going to be surprised if/when they do, least of all the people being charged). Both the AD and the armorer have apparently layered up (as in they’ve been completely silent to the press, which I assume is on the advice of their lawyers).
But they’ve also been speaking to police as shown in the search warrants issued. Given the fact they presumably have decent legal representation (not the multi-million dollar, former DA, team the producers have apparently employed, but you’d think they could get decent lawyer) why did they speak to the police about this?
They might have done so at first, in shock, or thinking no charges could possibly be filed.
I’ve read the whole thread and gotten a minor headache from it. I’m just gluing my mouth shut until my lawyer shows up if I’m to be questioned.
<Defense attorneys everywhere cheer, reflexively shouting:> “This!”
Stranger
I am reminded of the story of a Chicago gangster in a bar in Wisconsin pointing to a taxidermized wide mouth bass hanging on the wall. “Now see? If that dumb fish had kept his mouth shut, he never woulda got in trouble.”
On the other hand, at least he isn’t sleeping with the (other) fishes…
Stranger
Though presumably fish gangsters end up “sleeping with the humans”
I wouldn’t take advice from a guy in a video, especially if they are giving that sort of black and white fits for all sizes advice. I’d ask my lawyer and be guided by what she says. As I am by my tax person, my investment person, and all the other folks who know a hell of a lot more about their specialties than I do. 
I thought of this thread while reading the Alec Baldwin [accidentally] Kills Crew Member with Prop Gun thread in Cafe Society. I"m sure if everyone associated with the film Rust had refused to answer any questions by law enforcement, it would have been a great comfort to Hutchins’ family. (And at least initially, anyone associated with the film could have been seen as a potential suspect by cops.) With most questions unanswered, it would be unclear how the shooting occurred, so the case would not be the object lesson that could improve safety in other films, surely reassuring to the survivors of any future shootings on set. Win-win!
Thank heavens for the advice to people to clam up and not talk, even if they’re the victims, and even if their attorney is present. I know I certainly feel much safer knowing that if I’m assaulted again and refuse to talk, the assailant would be even more likely to get away to attack again. I mean, the last thing I’d want would be to be safer at the expense of the culprit’s freedom. As for the future victims, they should clam up and get real: all law enforcement agents are doofuses who’ll pin the crime on whoever they want, regardless of evidence, and they’ll secure convictions, too! After all, only 95-99% of people in jail are guilty of the crimes they’re charged with. We shouldn’t be working on ensuring there are fewer wrongful convictions, not when it’s so much easier not to talk to cops!
It can’t be emphasized too strongly: take your chances with the bad guys, people. They won’t arrest you for a crime you didn’t commit; they’ll just rape, assault, rob, or kill you or their next victim, and who wouldn’t prefer that?
Bra-VO! A perfect response to this self-interested shit.
At least until nelliebly decides to helps the cops and ends up serving 3-5 for a crime she didn’t commit.
Yeah, the last thing you should do when being questioned by the police is look out for your own interests. Just trust that they will do look out for your interests and not lie to you or deceive you to their intent.
No one is saying that you should not share information about a crime to police, and in fact, in many cases you are obligated to provide information about a crime you have witnessed. But a lawyer acts as a filter that prevents you from unintentionally exposing yourself to liabilities that you, as a layperson not conversant with nuances of the law and practices of interrogation, may not be conversant with.
Stranger
What’s your view on people who are in prison on false confessions?
I agree. This issue has been debated numerous times on this board. Here’s the breakdown as I see it:
- A crime has occurred. The police are trying to identify the criminal. They are seeking to specifically find the person who committed the crime and not some innocent person. You should:
Cooperate with the police and give them whatever information you have that is relevant to the crime if you are innocent. You should refuse to say anything without a lawyer present if you are guilty.
- A crime has occurred. The police want to arrest the first person they catch and charge them with the crime, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent. The police will lie in order to do this. You should:
Offer to make a full confession in exchange for a McDonalds Happy Meal. Because if the police are going to lie, you are already screwed and you might as well get a free meal out of it.
- A crime has occurred. The police want to arrest the first person they catch and charge them with the crime, regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent. The police will lie in order to do this. But the police have to follow rules about what lies they can tell. You should:
Invoke the magic words and render the police powerless in their attempt to railroad you. The magic words may be “I want a lawyer” or “I am a traveler about the land who has not given mutual informed consent to be bound by admiralty law as a 14th amendment Citizen” or “Mecca lecca hi, mecca hiney ho” so be safe and use all of them. But once you do, the police can no longer tell any lies.
Here’s my problem with this discussion and the discussion about Brian Laundrie et al. We live in the United States, at least the American dopers are. We have rights that most people in the world don’t have. We are allowed to not talk to police. We are allowed to have attorneys. So many people on this board are very blase about other people giving up their rights to help the police. Makes me wonder about a few things:
If those people were stopped by police and start getting questioned or the ol’ “We just have a few questions about a body in your apartment’s dumpster” or “This is the time to tell your side of the story. We’re only trying to help.” and would either clam up or ask for an attorney or otherwise stand on their rights as Americans?
If those people realize that many innocent people have gone to prison because of false confessions or let it slip out that “sure we argued” or an equivalent? I just listened to an interview with Amanda Knox. The Italian police never told her she was a suspect so never thought to have an attorney. She was helping out the police catch who murdered her roommate so spoke openly. Look it up if you don’t know what her “help” got her as a reward.
Even if we posit that 99% of the time the police are honest and want the truth and not just a convenient conviction, are those people willing to take even that 1% risk that may come with 30 years to life? Let’s put this another way. Write down a whole number from 1 to 100 and I get 1 guess. If I guess wrong, you get no reward other than a good feeling about yourself. If I guess right, you lose all your assets, get a felony on your record and spend 20 years in prison. You want to play my game?