I'm guessing mental abuse of being accused and repetitively in a room for hours. The constant demand upon a person to confess with no end in sight for the person. The experience being unique by the variables of the alleged crime and with whoever is hired to question play into the equation. I think the best situation for an accused person is refusing to talk and until an attorney tells them what to say. Since, mentally I doubt my health (at my best state) could even take anything else in a situation of such importance.
> I think the best situation for an accused person is refusing to talk [to the police]
Simple advice, and easy to follow. Even if you are innocent, understand the police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you. Do Not Help Them.
IANAL, but in the USA, even if the charge is jaywalking and you are arrested ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY. DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS without an attorney present. They may try and delay you from retaining an attorney, but when asked a question the only response should be "I want an attorney".
Anecdotally, I am someone who is prone to feeling claustrophobic when I'm in an enclosed space or feeling pressured by people. I could see how 8-12 hours of intense questioning and not knowing my rights could easily turn into "I will say whatever you want, just get me out of this space."
>IANAL, but in the USA, even if the charge is jaywalking and you are arrested ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY. DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS without an attorney present. They may try and delay you from retaining an attorney, but when asked a question the only response should be "I want an attorney".
I want to know (from anyone who is well-informed) how exactly this works out for the poor and middle class. In the movies they say "I want to speak to my attorney", but 90% of the population don't have a "my attorney", so if you just demand an attorney, what happens next? Do they hand you a phone book, and you have to thumb through to the lawyer section of the yellow pages? If you just demand (generic) "an attorney", do they have one on staff they can give you, or fetch one from a nearby court? What's the process like? Do you have a right to a free attorney when you're making a statement to the police, or only in court?
And is it legal for a police officer to pretend to be an attorney? (Seen this in several movies.) Is stuff you say to an officer pretending to be an attorney admissible in court?
Basically, the problem gets more complicated for anyone who doesn't retain an attorney, and much more complicated for anyone who can't afford one. How does it work exactly?
It is completely illegal for a police officer to pretend to be an attorney; it's actually illegal for anyone to pretend to be an attorney (in the situation of a suspect asking for an attorney.) The cops can lie to you about a great many things, but they cannot lie to you about the person you are talking with being an attorney. Any judge would probably immediately declare a mistrial if they found out that had happened, and anything you said to the fake attorney would be deemed inadmissible.
> If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
I've always wondered this - what if I can afford a lawyer, but don't want to burn $500 talking to someone about a traffic citation? Do I then have to pay, and if so, what constitutes "cannot afford"?
>If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
Public defenders are notoriously overworked, and are often only allowed a few minutes per case. This is one of many aspects of the justice system that is completely eroded and disproportionately fails the poor.
When I worked as a public defender (in CA) we were winning roughly 2/3rds of our cases...the same as the private defense bar managed.. and securing much better plea deals than private counsel could, since the DAs were more inclined to negotiate with people they had to see every day.
The police must stop questioning you. Then they take you to jail until your public defender has time to see you. The courts automatically will assign a public defender to your case if you do not have one or cannot afford one.
> police have a job to do and that is to make a case against you
...in the US.
If you're in England and you didn't do it then it's normally a good idea to clear things up. You can have a solicitor with you. Of course, if you've been arrested then you should make use of the solicitor and follow their advice - which will usually be "explain what happened and where you were at the time", unless you did in fact do it where their advice might be "explain in these terms what happened", or "just say 'no comment' to every question".
Any criminal solicitor worth their salt will help you to prepare a written statement giving your account of events, read it out on your behalf and strongly advise you to say nothing.
The police are still human beings with human biases. If the interviewing officer has a gut instinct that you're guilty, they're highly liable to ask leading questions and try to put words in your mouth, even if they genuinely believe that they're being fair. Any inconsistencies in your account will be taken as indications of guilt and will be used against you if it goes to trial. "Just tell us what happened so we can clear things up" often means "I know you did it, so just hurry up and confess to everything".
Malice is not a prerequisite for a miscarriage of justice; the English system offers far better protection for criminal suspects, but it's by no means infallible.
The lawyer will stop you from going over the top with your defense though, clarifying all statements such as changing the panicked reaction to a serious accusation:"I've never even been to that city!" with "I haven't been to that city recently" which is a huge difference should the police later discover a tiny piece of evidence like a social media posting or receipt showing you did indeed go to that city once upon a time 10+ years ago. If you don't clarify then they can say you are a liar and made a provably false statement to the police during court.
Police in the UK have the same goals as police in the US, it's just that American police are often more aggressive about it. American lawyers will often give that same advice, tell your story to clear things up so that you can go home.
It's still generally smarter to wait until you have the advice from the lawyer before you start yapping though.
They do retain their principles of policing by consent. They are a citizen in uniform rather than a force in opposition to the citizens. It does generally change the attitude in nearly all dealings.
UK police can't lie to suspects in interview or bring out some false evidence to encourage you to confess, and interviews have to be fully recorded. Yes, of course there have been some that break the rules.
Eye witness testimony is crap too. Even if you could answer pointed questions about your whereabouts in any given evening using Google maps, human recollection of events and their details is not great.
There are questions I am capable of answering with the police but I must accept that most questions I answer could be wrong, or another witness could be wrong and now the police can use my evidence to accuse me off being a liar... Which happens to innocent people in the US because our prison system isn't about Justice, it's about maximizing the slave count in the private prison system.
Does that take into account all the private contractors who sell services to "not for profit" prison systems and the sale of prison labor by those same prisons?
>Can there really be consequences for contradicting the other witness, without other indications pointing to who's right?
Yes. The end-goal is to infer that the suspect is being deceptive and/or lying and that, in turn, would make any statements that give the suspect any "good light" weighted less credible to their own defence.
"You said you didn't shoot the suspect but you also said you wore an off-blue shirt. 'X' said the shirt they say you in was solid blue. Why would you lie about the colour of your shirt!? And, since you're lying about that, how do we know you're not lying about shooting the victim?"
Consider that some states have laws considering silence, or a refusal to deny allegations, as direct evidence of culpability. Texas is one of those states. Laws reflect human nature about as much as fire is similar to ice.
Since Miranda rights are part of a Federal, constitutional right to not require self-incrimination, I was curious about what you mean, and found this: https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/
"No discussion of Texas Miranda laws is complete without mentioning the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court said that you must affirmatively invoke your right to remain silent, or it doesn’t count. It’s not enough just to shuffle your feet and look away."
Edit: reading a bit more about it, I don't think this specific case amounts to a law against being silent or one that is specific to Texas. This was a Supreme Court case, and the issue is the defendant wasn't under arrest and wasn't Mirandized and was already talking to police when he went "silent".
"Question: Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?"
Conclusion: No, by 5-4 decision.
What this means is, if you haven't been arrested, then you do have to say out loud something like "I'm exercising my right to remain silent." As far as I can tell this is true in all US states. Once arrested you still presumably have the right to literally remain silent, even in Texas, under the Fifth Amendment.
Is this the one you were thinking of, or is there some other law or case you're thinking of?
an important point in that video is that if you say anything, and someone else (for exampe a police officer) says something else, then it becomes your word against the police officer's in court
Simple advice, yes. I would disagree on the 'easy to follow' part - it's very difficult to stand your ground against someone with the authority and powers of a police officer, especially in a tense or confusing situation. Alternatively, perhaps the officer is presenting things as a completely innocuous situation, where only someone like a sociopathic, unhelpful criminal with something to hide would refuse to respond, and so on. It makes it very psychologically demanding and emotionally draining to keep saying 'no comment' and yet still remember that you are doing the right thing and absolutely have the right to keep doing so.
After consulting your attorney before answering anything, you answer their questions through your attorney. If they want your testimony live, they can subpoena you.
I was in a real estate investing meetup at Halloween where people were sharing scary stories. The scariest was told by a guy who was, unknown to him, dealing with a corrupt mortgage broker. Two FBI agents knocked on his door and "wanted to ask some questions". He told them he would be happy to talk to them with his lawyer in their office the next morning, but he wasn't saying anything at that time. He figures that stall potentially saved him tens of thousands of dollars by not being dragged into a blanket indictment.
Every defense attorney I've talked to says they've had a hundreds of cases where they wished their client hadn't talked to the cops. And they've never mentioned one where they wished their client had talked to the cops.
Oh Chris you're from the UK. I think most people on this thread are assuming you're talking about the u.s. where you should absolutely not talk to the cops until a lawyer is present.
It must work differently in the UK where either the cops and prosecutors are less aggressively trying to convict you no matter your innocence or guilt. Or not speaking to the cops is held against you far more.
>Every defense attorney I've talked to says they've had a hundreds of cases where they wished their client hadn't talked to the cops
It may be good advice, but this logic is clearly confirmation bias. A person who talked to the cops and succeeded in convincing them of their innocence would not have a need for a defense attorney.
Once the police officers are convinced enough that you did it to bring you in for questioning the chances you'll be able to just convince them otherwise are slim and a huge risk.
I don't think that's true. The police cast a wide net and will question anyone they think might have something to do with a crime. Especially if they don't have good leads to go on. Being uncooperative can definitely raise suspicions.
Watching the first 48 (a show following murder investigations) I'd break it down to:
(1) people that are guilty and think things like "he had it coming" or "my buddy was just supposed to rob him" help their case. They admit to capital crimes when trying to lessen their guilt.
(2) people the police think are guilty and ineffectively lie. They probably don't hurt or help themselves.
(3) people the police aren't sure of. They can talk themselves in or out of suspicion based on their guilt and/or ability to effectively lie.
The group that get coerced into confessing to a crime is a very small percentage of people interviewed.
To be frank, this is bad advice [EDIT: parent wasn't giving advice, so instead this should read as something like "Talking to police without your attorney present is a very risky idea..."] that probably literally every criminal defense attorney in the United States will disagree with (I am not a lawyer, however, to be clear). A better framing perhaps is that there are two scenarios if you are being interrogated by the police:
(1) The police have enough evidence to charge you with a crime
(2) The police do not have enough evidence to charge you with a crime
They do not have to tell you (and can actively lie!) which scenario you are in, and these scenarios are only loosely correlated with whether or not you actually recently committed a crime.
In scenario (1), they're going to charge you with a crime no matter what you say - they already have enough evidence. And anything you say to the police in this scenario can only be used as evidence against you to further strengthen the police's case, it cannot be used in your own defense in court. So it's better to remain silent.
In scenario (2), if you remain silent, they cannot charge you with a crime - they don't have enough evidence and you're not giving them any (asserting your right to remain silent is not evidence). If you answer their questions, you might accidentally give them enough evidence to charge you with a crime, like contradicting your own story because your memory is fallible. The police are allowed to lie to you, ask you trick questions, wear you down, and in general do anything they can to get a confession or other evidence against you. The things you say here can only be used against you to strengthen the police's case. So it's better to remain silent.
If you are being interrogated by the police, they are not your friends and nothing you say can help you. The only person on your side is your lawyer. Stay silent until your lawyer is in the room, and then do exactly what your lawyer says.
It's been linked elsewhere, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE is a real-life law professor and a police officer both saying exactly the same thing. American TV often includes narratives about the behavior of police officers that do not align with reality or the best interests of people accused of crimes.
No, the attorneys I've talked to or seen discuss this directly cover that, and I'm afraid the mistake here is yours. What you've pointed out is that of course the odds of any random person ending in trouble are low. However, we're talking about a situation where (1) the police have already taken notice of you, personally, which significantly shifts the risk up and (2) the potential outcomes are wildly different. So you must weight even a smaller risk. On the one side, someone who, on their own, "convinces the cops of their innocence" gets to just go home a few hours earlier and possibly save a bit of money. But the person who fails faces enormous negative consequences, huge amounts of money, prison time, a felony conviction will have permanent consequences for the rest of their life, etc. Furthermore, they are at a radical information disadvantage. They not merely face huge risks, they don't even have any real way to know what those risks are in their specific case, and on top of that they're unlikely to be in a good mental state to dispassionately consider even what little they do know!
Consider an exact equivalent of what you just said: "A person who didn't wear a seatbelt and succeeded in making it to their destination safely would not have a need for a doctor" so therefore doctors saying they've had hundreds/thousands of cases where they wished their patient had worn a seatbelt is confirmation bias. But on the one hand is a certain amount of extra inconvenience and some money that has to be spent (in mandating it by law we're forcing people to spend it, but that was a debate), whereas on the other is horrific injuries and possibly death. Even if the latter risk is small, because the outcome is so significant it's worth weighting higher. And drivers are often at the highest risk when they're sleepy, or distracted or otherwise mentally disturbed which in turn is the exact worst time to be making judgements. So it's best to just have it be habit to do without thought, each and every time (and a requirement on top to help form that habit).
Similarly the you, and me, and everyone else in this thread sitting comfortably on a Sunday afternoon discussing on HN are mostly not going to be in the same mindset we would be after having been taken in for questioning. You cannot count on yourself. You will be facing unknown unknowns. And the risks of screwing up are huge. Your opponents are experienced, and have vast resources they will draw on unhesitatingly. That's why the advice is always simple: just do not try to outthink this, unless perhaps you know for sure you're willing to have your reputation destroyed and go to prison for it (and few actually have any real inkling what that is like or means) and it seems to be a genuine emergency (because otherwise it will not hurt to give it a day).
>No, the attorneys I've talked to or seen discuss this directly cover that,
Whether they have a separate argument has no bearing on the logical consistency of the one the GP gave.
>A person who didn't wear a seatbelt and succeeded in making it to their destination safely would not have a need for a doctor" so therefore doctors saying they've had hundreds/thousands of cases where they wished their patient had worn a seatbelt is confirmation bias.
This absolutely is the same logical fallacy. In this case the conclusion is still correct.
On the other hand consider a trauma surgeon and motorcycle accidents. They may very rarely treat a patient that was not wearing a helmet. Does that mean wearing a helmet is dangerous? Of course not. It's because an accident severe enough to require a trauma surgeon is likely to be fatal to someone not wearing a helmet.
Again, the point is not that asking for an attorney is the wrong course of action. The point is that the argument in the GP isn't logically sound.
If you had a really rock-solid alibi - something that meant there was not even a remote possibility that you were the offender, would you still not bring it up at all to the Police? You'd go all the way to court, months later, and only then bring it up?
If you have a rock solid alibi, like you're on video tape somewhere else while the crime happened and the police know exactly when the crime happened then you'll get off whether you talked to the police or not.
But it's even hard to figure out whether or not you have a rock solid alibi because you don't necessarily know the timing of the crime.
Also plenty of people have gone to jail for 20 years in the u.s. who have rock solid alibis(like they were in another city).
In the US: you don't ever talk to the police for any reason unless you have a lawyer with you telling you what to say.
You're completely right about the UK though. If you didn't do it and police are asking if you did it it's normally much easier to just tell them that you didn't do it, and this has very little risk.
The risk comes from people who have committed the offence, but who think that it's a minor issue and think that just explaining it to police will mean they can go.
If the police stop you and you have a self-defence baseball bat in the boot of your car then you need to say "it's for playing baseball with the kids". As soon as you say "it's for self-defence, just to scare people off, I'd never hit anyone with it" that converts it into an offence and police are a bit touchy about weapons at the moment.
> In the US: you don't ever talk to the police for any reason unless you have a lawyer with you telling you what to say.
How far do you take this? Here are a couple of hypothetical situations, and in both of them I would answer police questions. I've had people tell me that they would not, and have cited the popular video someone else cited earlier as the reason.
1. You are walking down the sidewalk and pass a parked car. You are a car enthusiast, and recognize the make, model, and year of the car because it is one that is sought after by enthusiasts, and this one particularly stands out because it looks like it some options that were only available in a limited edition.
A moment later, you hear a commotion, and see a man run out of a building holding a baby, followed by a woman who is shouting "help! my baby! he took my baby!", and then faints. You see the man get into the aforementioned car and get onto a nearby freeway, heading South.
Police quickly arrive. None of the other witnesses saw where the man went or could describe anything about him, because they were distracted when the woman fainted. The police ask you if you saw anything that could help find the man or identify him.
Do you really wait until you cat get a lawyer to advise you before you describe the car and tell them he appeared to get on the Southbound freeway?
2. There is an explosion in your small office. Police are the first emergency responders to arrive. They ask if everyone is accounted for. You saw a coworker go into the bathroom shortly before the explosion, and did not see them come out, and looking around at your coworkers gathered across the street watching the office burn and being given first aid, you see everyone except that one coworker.
Do you tell police that you still appear to have one missing coworker, or wait to run the question by a lawyer first?
I think the advice of never speaking to the police is meant to say that you can only get yourself into more trouble, not less. Emergency situations like this require you to make judgement calls. These situations seem like obvious cases to help out with your eyewitness testimony. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you wouldn't be breaking some lay by intentionally not helping in an emergency.
> and you have a self-defence baseball bat in the boot of your car
Well this isn't a great example because that is an offence and the Police would be right to do you for it! You're advocating lying to cover up offences for your own selfish benefit!
It's not hard to turn that into a situation where it can work against you.
What if it were your child's baseball bat? You can say that's what it's for but then what if the cop asks you if you'd use it for self defense? Would saying yes potentially be incriminating?
You would potentially bring this up to the police, after consulting with your lawyer and ascertaining the precise language and limits of what you'll say. You won't be doing this on the fly without consulting with a lawyer. This doesn't require you to wait until a court date to have any statement made on behalf of yourself.
The UK specifically rules that failing to speak to the police can be held against you. (You still shouldn't speak to the police, even in the UK.)
Every country is somewhat different in its rules for how a suspect can be questioned, what inferences can be drawn, etc. But the advice for everywhere is still the same: shut up.
I mentioned this in another comment - only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is it true that silence can be held against you. In the other constituent part of the UK, Scotland, there cannot be any adverse inference drawn from your silence.
You have the absolute right to a solicitor before giving a statement. Your solicitor will advise appropriately - until they have I personally would shut up.
Giving a statement is not the same thing as being interviewed as a suspect. You don't have a right to a solicitor before giving a witness statement, but it's completely up to you whether you want to give a statement.
You have a right to free and independent legal advice if you are interviewed under caution as a suspect (whether or not you have been arrested).
> It must work differently in the UK where either the cops and prosecutors are less aggressively trying to convict you no matter your innocence or guilt. Or not speaking to the cops is held against you far more.
Cops and prosecutors are definitely just as aggressive in the UK. The difference is that UK case law, unlike the US, allows the refusal to speak with the police to be construed as evidence in itself, whereas the US does not.
Such as if you had an alibi that you try to use as a defence in court but you didn't mention it when questioned by Police in the first place. This can cast doubt on the alibi - presumably because people will think you made it up later and if it was true you should have been able to say so in the first place.
> it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
Or it gives the cops time to poke holes in your alibi or otherwise intimidate your alibi if the cops are dead set on you being the guilty person. Better to tell a lawyer your alibi so he can collect the information first so that he’s not blindsided later.
This is if you can afford a lawyer who can work with you quickly. If you’re poor and you think your alibi is strong enough to let you go immediately then it might be better.
Yes I know - but the problem with that is that when you get to court and try to defend yourself, your defence will be weaker because you didn't answer questions at the time. It's bad advice.
>You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later
No, your defense will be weaker if you talk because the prosecution will use your words against you. They're not going to give you virtue points for being kind to them and not bothering them with things like asserting your right to an attorney. That's not their job.
What you're saying and what's in the link seems to be consistent with the advice of refusing to talk to the police at all, and not to talk partially or to answer some questions and not answer other questions, or answering but changing the statement later.
You should have mentioned that you're talking about the UK in your original statement. The fact that you did not may be used against you in the furtherance of this discussion.
In the US we have the fifth amended, and it seems that [1] as long as it explicitly invokes the protection one would be safe from similar repercussions.
This wasn’t intended to be nationalistic, I was just sharing my thoughts on the US justice system which I believe is deeply flawed. I mentioned the UK because that’s what the parent comment linked to but it could’ve easily been another country (except the ones where the situation is even worse, which there aren’t too many of thankfully).
Feel free to edit/delete my post if you think it will improve the overall discussion.
