Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[kiki5711]

Juries are specifically told, by the judge, that a defendant's decision not to testify cannot be a consideration in their deliberations. The prosecution is not ALLOWED to make a point of it.

Yea, that's like "slapping" someone, then telling them, "don't hold that against me". Even words spoken in court in front of juries that are inappropriate and then instructed by the judge to ignore the statement is like, "a day late and a dollar short" it's already been heard.

[laklak]

Lawyers use that tactic all the time, kiki. They'll say some prejudicial thing and the opposing lawyer will object, the judge will instruct the jury to ignore the statement. It's risky, though. Too many off-hand remarks can result in a mistrial. In this case, though, the right against self-incrimination is paramount and the prosecution will NOT bring up a defendant's refusal to testify. That would be an almost automatic mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

[mistermack]

I'm not talking about a refusal to testify. I've pointed that out quite clearly. I'm talking about whether the fact that a suspect would not answer questions from the police can be mentioned when they introduce new information in their defence.
If you offer no alibi to a crime when questioned, and much later produce one out of a hat, it's fair that the prosecution should be able to point out that there has been plenty of time to concoct one, and that an innocent person would have just pointed out where he was at the time of the crime.

You people seem to be claiming that allowing reference to the silence of the suspect would result in serious miscarriages of justice. Well, there is no sign of it in the UK.

Our legal profession are extremely vigilant in that regard, they have their finger on the pulse, and many of them end up in the House of Lords, making laws. If there was a serious problem of innocent people getting convicted because of this, we would have heard it loud and clear.

It simply hasn't happened.

Our standard police caution is : you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in court.

As criminals concoct all sorts of stories and alibis, given time, often by using threats to make others back them up, it's criminals who get a hard time from this, not the innocent.

I've seen that video before, of the guy advising people not to talk to the police.
He's right. If you are guilty, or mentally deficient, it's best to keep silent.

The two examples of innocent people CONFESSED under pressure. The didn't use their right to silence. Those people never will, it's overwhelmingly criminals who make use of that right.

The other example, of a lawyer who spoke to a cop, and the cop lied about what he said.
Well, firstly, I think it''s an invention. But if it wasn't, then he was a lousy lawyer.
He could have insisted on waiting until there was a taped interview, with his own lawyer present as a witness.
I don't believe it even happened. But if it did, and the cop perjured himself, then he could have done that, whether the guy kept silent, or not. There is very little defence against a cop willing to commit perjury. What a stupid example to use.

Basically, the fifth amendment says you should not be compelled to talk. I'm not advocating that.
We don't have that in the UK.
I'm just saying that it should not be kept secret from the jury.

In any case, anybody with any brains on a jury will work it out for himself, if there is no mention of a police interview following an arrest. I would personally conclude that he kept silent.

I'm sure there would be at least one person on every jury who would be able to point that out to the others.

[laklak]

If you want to trust in the good offices and sense of fair play you so obviously attribute to the peelers over there then by all means, have a nice chat and cuppa with them. I'll refuse to say a word other than "I want my lawyer" and will let my mouthpiece do the talking. That's the advice from every lawyer I've ever talked to, and since I've got 3 of them in my immediate family with about 60 years experience between them I'll take that advice. As my sister (on of 'em) says, the idea that "the police are your friend" is fine for preschoolers who get lost in the shopping mall, but any sane person will shut the fuck up and call a lawyer.

[mistermack]

If you want to trust in the good offices and sense of fair play you so obviously attribute to the peelers over there then by all means, have a nice chat and cuppa with them. I'll refuse to say a word other than "I want my lawyer" and will let my mouthpiece do the talking. That's the advice from every lawyer I've ever talked to, and since I've got 3 of them in my immediate family with about 60 years experience between them I'll take that advice. As my sister (on of 'em) says, the idea that "the police are your friend" is fine for preschoolers who get lost in the shopping mall, but any sane person will shut the fuck up and call a lawyer.

I would use the right to silence myself, but it would depend.
If I was accused of something I didn't do, and I knew that I had a cast-iron alibi for the place and time in question, I would say so straight away. And I think if someone comes up with a "cast iron" alibi weeks later, as a juror I would feel that I should have been informed of that fact.

There are other victims in crime, as well as innocent people who are accused.
What about OJ Simpson's wife, for example? Or her friend who was killed with her? What justice did they get? For every criminal who get's acquitted, there are victims robbed of justice.

You can brag all you like about the rights of the suspect, but if you have lots of guilty people going free, you have a shit system.

If American police are so keen to get convictions, that they extract confessions from mentally deficient suspects, and perjure themselves in order to convict a lawyer, then the problem seems to lie in US police culture, rather than the technicalities of the right to silence.

[Seth]

I'm not talking about a refusal to testify. I've pointed that out quite clearly. I'm talking about whether the fact that a suspect would not answer questions from the police can be mentioned when they introduce new information in their defence.

It can't. The suspect has no duty to give the police ANY information other than his name and other booking information that allows the police to properly identify him. And that is a new ruling by the SCOTUS from last year. Used to be that you didn't have to say ANYTHING to the police and could in fact "remain silent." Now you have to answer questions about your identity or be charged with obstructing based on the theory that it's important for police to properly identify persons who are detained in order to comport with their due process rights, which is a reasonable construction.

If you offer no alibi to a crime when questioned, and much later produce one out of a hat, it's fair that the prosecution should be able to point out that there has been plenty of time to concoct one, and that an innocent person would have just pointed out where he was at the time of the crime.

That's just a burden that the prosecutor has to overcome anyway. In order to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he must prove that the defendant was at the crimescene and could not have been somewhere else at the time of the crime as ONE of the elements he's required to prove. The defendant has no obligation to do the prosecutor's work for him by providing evidence against his own interests by claiming an alibi to the police. It is in the best interests of the presumptively-innocent defendant to withhold that alibi information from the prosecution so that at trial it may be produced in a manner that will not allow the prosecutor to rebut it successfully, thereby enhancing the defendant's opportunity to be acquitted. To demand that a defendant reveal any alibi to the police is to demand that the defendant make an admission against his own interests and to give the prosecution unfair advantage by allowing the prosecution to investigate the alibi more thoroughly. Every prosecutor knows that an alibi defense may be revealed at trial, so they send out investigators precisely in order to pin down the defendant's whereabouts at the time the crime was committed as a matter of course and proper police investigation.

A prosecutor cannot simply assert that the defendant was at the scene of the crime, he's required to PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt, and that necessarily includes proving that he could not have been, and in fact was not in some other place.

You people seem to be claiming that allowing reference to the silence of the suspect would result in serious miscarriages of justice. Well, there is no sign of it in the UK.

There's every sign of it. As i said, requiring that the defendant provide alibi information prior to trial is prejudicial to the defendant and beneficial to the prosecution and doing so impinges upon the civil right of the defendant not to be forced to give evidence against himself. The use at trial of the defendant's refusal to give the prosecution a leg-up is a gross miscarriage of justice because the defendant (at least in the US) is presumed in law to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court, by a jury of his peers. Therefore, it's the prosecution's job to rebut alibis, it's not in the defendant's interests to give the prosecution ammunition he can use against the defendant.

Our legal profession are extremely vigilant in that regard, they have their finger on the pulse, and many of them end up in the House of Lords, making laws. If there was a serious problem of innocent people getting convicted because of this, we would have heard it loud and clear.

Yeah, right. Once you're convicted, your a convict, and your voice is severely diminished.

It simply hasn't happened.

Prove it.

Our standard police caution is : you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in court.

And that's demanding that you give evidence against yourself on pain of having it impeached by the prosecution because you refused to do the prosecution's job for them. It's a gross and despotic violation of human rights.

As criminals concoct all sorts of stories and alibis, given time, often by using threats to make others back them up, it's criminals who get a hard time from this, not the innocent.

I've seen that video before, of the guy advising people not to talk to the police.
He's right. If you are guilty, or mentally deficient, it's best to keep silent.

The point is that it's ALWAYS best to keep silent, no matter what.

The two examples of innocent people CONFESSED under pressure. The didn't use their right to silence. Those people never will, it's overwhelmingly criminals who make use of that right.

People "confess" under pressure who are entirely innocent all the time when they are offered a plea bargain. To many people, a plea bargain involving a short sentence in jail and a felony conviction is less fearful than the full weight of the law that the prosecutor automatically threatens them with (say 25 to life) if they have the temerity to take the case to trial. The coercive force of plea bargains is enormous and plea bargaining should be completely outlawed as unconstitutional coercion that leads MANY people to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.

If the prosecution is not prepared to take EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL CASE to trial, then it should not bring the charges in the first place.

And that's precisely how the citizenry should shut down the courts and put a stop to coercive plea bargaining...by never accepting a plea bargain EVER and demanding in EVERY case that they be given a full and fair jury trial on even the most trivial of charges.

Did you know that about 90 percent of criminal charges are plea-bargained away and thus never go to trial? Ever wonder why this is?

Follow the money.

Prosecutors don't give a flying fuck if the defendant is guilty or not, they just want to resolve the case as cheaply and quickly as possible, so it's to their benefit to threaten the maximum penalty while offering a relatively attractive plea bargain regardless of the actual guilt of the defendant, just to make their job easier.

If every case had to go to trial, the system would grind to a halt almost immediately. And it should be brought to its knees in that manner, because the only important thing is justice and that innocent persons not go to jail.

The other example, of a lawyer who spoke to a cop, and the cop lied about what he said.
Well, firstly, I think it''s an invention. But if it wasn't, then he was a lousy lawyer.

No, it was a lousy cop. Cops lie all the time about what was said because they have reputations to maintain. That's precisely why it's best never to say anything to the police.

He could have insisted on waiting until there was a taped interview, with his own lawyer present as a witness.

Yup, someone stopped by the police should ALWAYS remain silent, no matter what.

I don't believe it even happened. But if it did, and the cop perjured himself, then he could have done that, whether the guy kept silent, or not. There is very little defence against a cop willing to commit perjury. What a stupid example to use.

It's easier to impeach perjury by a cop if you don't say anything than it is to rebut what the cop claims he heard.

Basically, the fifth amendment says you should not be compelled to talk. I'm not advocating that.

So, you're advocating that you SHOULD be compelled to talk?

We don't have that in the UK.

Indeed, which is what makes the UK a despotic tyranny.

I'm just saying that it should not be kept secret from the jury.

If you have the right to remain silent, and you invoke it, it can only be prejudicial for that fact to be introduced to the jury.

In any case, anybody with any brains on a jury will work it out for himself, if there is no mention of a police interview following an arrest. I would personally conclude that he kept silent.

I'm sure there would be at least one person on every jury who would be able to point that out to the others.

Probably, but over here, you see, because we have a RIGHT to remain silent, that fact cannot be considered as evidence of guilt by the jury. That's why it's expressed as a right to begin with, and juries in the US are told they must respect that right and not hold it against the defendant.

[Seth]

If you want to trust in the good offices and sense of fair play you so obviously attribute to the peelers over there then by all means, have a nice chat and cuppa with them. I'll refuse to say a word other than "I want my lawyer" and will let my mouthpiece do the talking. That's the advice from every lawyer I've ever talked to, and since I've got 3 of them in my immediate family with about 60 years experience between them I'll take that advice. As my sister (on of 'em) says, the idea that "the police are your friend" is fine for preschoolers who get lost in the shopping mall, but any sane person will shut the fuck up and call a lawyer.

I would use the right to silence myself, but it would depend.
If I was accused of something I didn't do, and I knew that I had a cast-iron alibi for the place and time in question, I would say so straight away.

And you'd be an idiot to do so because if you're a suspect, it's in your best interests for that alibi to be revealed at trial, not months or years before then which gives the police and prosecutor plenty of time to either prove the alibi is false or coerce the alibi witness to recant.

And I think if someone comes up with a "cast iron" alibi weeks later, as a juror I would feel that I should have been informed of that fact.

This is only because YOU have never been wrongfully accused of a crime.

There are other victims in crime, as well as innocent people who are accused.
What about OJ Simpson's wife, for example? Or her friend who was killed with her? What justice did they get? For every criminal who get's acquitted, there are victims robbed of justice.

Oh well. The need for justice does not justify using methods that infringe on the presumption of innocence, because that's how tyranny and injustice prevail. It's better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent person be wrongfully convicted.

You can brag all you like about the rights of the suspect, but if you have lots of guilty people going free, you have a shit system.

And if you have lots of innocent people being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, it's an even shittier system. And that's what the UK has, and it's why we in the US changed the system of British despotism and tyranny to bring some actual justice to the table.

If American police are so keen to get convictions, that they extract confessions from mentally deficient suspects, and perjure themselves in order to convict a lawyer, then the problem seems to lie in US police culture, rather than the technicalities of the right to silence.

Believe me, it ain't just US police, it's the nature of police EVERYWHERE, including the UK.

[mistermack]

And you'd be an idiot to do so because if you're a suspect, it's in your best interests for that alibi to be revealed at trial, not months or years before then which gives the police and prosecutor plenty of time to either prove the alibi is false or coerce the alibi witness to recant.

You seem to have the same opinion as me of your police then. A bit telling, for someone who claims to have been one.
I would expect the British police to lose interest in prosecuting me, once they discovered that I didn't do the crime.

Different in the States, then? Nice !

This is only because YOU have never been wrongfully accused of a crime.

WTF ? I have been wrongfully accused of a crime. Twice.
The first time, I was convicted but was acquitted on appeal.
The second time, I represented myself, as I was disgusted with the performance of the lawyer previously, and won the case and was acquitted.

Why make such a silly claim, when you know nothing?

And if you have lots of innocent people being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, it's an even shittier system. And that's what the UK has, and it's why we in the US changed the system of British despotism and tyranny to bring some actual justice to the table.

Hang on, if they are convicted, they are guilty, according to YOUR "logic" .
And I quote :

And you're not guilty of a crime unless and until you are CONVICTED of that crime. That's how our legal system works, and should work.

If you're going to talk bollocks, you could at least make it CONSISTENT bollocks.

And you didn't change your law from the one you inherited from us.
WE changed, about thirty years ago, from the old law that you still have.

[Seth]

And you'd be an idiot to do so because if you're a suspect, it's in your best interests for that alibi to be revealed at trial, not months or years before then which gives the police and prosecutor plenty of time to either prove the alibi is false or coerce the alibi witness to recant.

You seem to have the same opinion as me of your police then. A bit telling, for someone who claims to have been one.
I would expect the British police to lose interest in prosecuting me, once they discovered that I didn't do the crime.

That would be a dashed expectation if the police think you did it and are determined to conceal and destroy the evidence that would exculpate you, which they have been known to do, even in the UK. Police, and prosecutors, have their stats and reputations to consider, and with some frequency will engage in illegal or unethical behavior in order to win a case so that they don't look bad in front of their peers. Solving cases is what police are supposed to do, and successfully prosecuting them is what the DA is supposed to do, and some of each will bend or break the rule of law in order to succeed, regardless of what it does to the defendant. That's why we're constantly finding innocent people in jail. And it's not a strictly US phenomenon either.

And I worked with a good many corrupt cops and prosecutors in my time. When I could prevent them from perpetrating a miscarriage of justice, I would attempt to do so mostly by doing my job meticulously, objectively and with due respect and regard for the rights of the defendant to have exculpatory evidence collected, preserved, analyzed and presented.

Different in the States, then? Nice !

Trust me, it's no different in the UK. There are corrupt cops and prosecutors there too.

This is only because YOU have never been wrongfully accused of a crime.

WTF ? I have been wrongfully accused of a crime. Twice.
The first time, I was convicted but was acquitted on appeal.
The second time, I represented myself, as I was disgusted with the performance of the lawyer previously, and won the case and was acquitted.

Why make such a silly claim, when you know nothing?

Well, that's interesting, very interesting. Evidently you enjoyed the experience so much that you didn't mind being wrongfully accused. Did you shoot your mouth off to the police the first time, or did you maintain your silence?

Interestingly, I've never been accused of, much less convicted of a crime. I wonder why that is?

And if you have lots of innocent people being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, it's an even shittier system. And that's what the UK has, and it's why we in the US changed the system of British despotism and tyranny to bring some actual justice to the table.

Hang on, if they are convicted, they are guilty, according to YOUR "logic" .
And I quote :

And you're not guilty of a crime unless and until you are CONVICTED of that crime. That's how our legal system works, and should work.

If you're going to talk bollocks, you could at least make it CONSISTENT bollocks.

And you didn't change your law from the one you inherited from us.
WE changed, about thirty years ago, from the old law that you still have.

You still don't understand. You are innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean that you can't be wrongfully convicted based on false testimony and manufactured evidence and still be innocent.

And in what way did you "change" from what specific "old law" that we have, pray tell. It was the United States that rejected the British system of "justice" when we rebelled against the tyranny of King George and his system of laws, much of which remains part of British law today...like the fact that you do NOT have the right to remain silent.

[maiforpeace]

Zimmerman's Bail Set At $1 Million

[Coito ergo sum]

The lawyer talks too fast, but if you can get past that this is a good introduction to why you don't talk to the police and why that right is so important.



It's a real problem.

Mistermack, you may wish to review the above video, which answers your points about innocent people being free to disclose their defenses to the police. There are good reasons why they should be silent too.

[mistermack]

I've seen it many times.
And commented on it in this thread.

It's a load of bullshit. The examples he quotes, of innocent mentally deficient people confessing, happened IN SPITE of the right to silence, and would be very unlikely to happen it the UK. They would certainly not be affected by our law that allows the silence of a suspect to be mentioned in court.

The other case, if it actually ever happened, of a lawyer getting convicted because of something he said to a police officer, would not be affected by our law either. And if the police officer is corrupt and willing to lie, then your silence is no defence. He can just as easily lie about that.

What he establishes is that if your police are corrupt, ( and he seems to think that they very often are ), or if you are guilty, then you should use your right to silence.

If your police ARE as corrupt as he portrays them, then yes, you DO need lots of safeguards.
I would say that you should be removing the incentive for corrupt practices, and massively increasing the penalties. Not hiding facts from juries, which just plays into the hands of career criminals.

You have a legal system that protects the rights of the clever criminal, and puts the mentally deficient and uneducated behind bars by the hundreds of thousands.
Don't it make ya feel proud?

[laklak]

Headline news is saying he may be out later today, he only needs to come up with $100,000 for the bail bond.

[mistermack]

Actually, the Zimmerman case completely contradicts one of the statements made by the lawyer in the video.
He says, catagorically, that talking to the police can NEVER help a suspect. WRONG.
Zimmerman cooperated, talked to the police, answered any question that they put to him, and didn't invoke his right to silence.
And they let him go within hours, after killing an innocent kid. And he would be free today, if it wasn't for the huge hullaballoo in the press.

That's just one part of the video disproved right here. The rest of it is bollocks too. You just accept what he says because that's his job.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've seen it many times.
And commented on it in this thread.

It's a load of bullshit. The examples he quotes, of innocent mentally deficient people confessing, happened IN SPITE of the right to silence, and would be very unlikely to happen it the UK. They would certainly not be affected by our law that allows the silence of a suspect to be mentioned in court.

You must not have listened closely, because he didn't just talk of innocent people confessing. He explained why even absolutely truthful and innocent statements can very well be used against you.

And fuck off with these nonsense comparisons to the US vs the UK, as if your justice system protects against injustice o' so much better. Plenty of travesties of justice happen on both sides of the pond, and the only reason you've got your superiority complex about your country's system is because you start from the premise that things British are superior.

a

The other case, if it actually ever happened, of a lawyer getting convicted because of something he said to a police officer, would not be affected by our law either. And if the police officer is corrupt and willing to lie, then your silence is no defence. He can just as easily lie about that.

Again, you must not have listened closely to the video, because it's not only about police lying. It's about police using what you may truthfully say, which may sound innocent at the time, but which may ultimately put you away, even if you are not guilty.

What he establishes is that if your police are corrupt, ( and he seems to think that they very often are ), or if you are guilty, then you should use your right to silence.

No, what he establishes is that you should use your right to remain silent even if you are innocent, and the police officer who speaks after him (who you apparently did not listen to) agreed.

If your police ARE as corrupt as he portrays them, then yes, you DO need lots of safeguards.

It's rather likely that police are much the same from country to country, and in the US our police are not particularly corrupt.

I would say that you should be removing the incentive for corrupt practices, and massively increasing the penalties. Not hiding facts from juries, which just plays into the hands of career criminals.

You have a legal system that protects the rights of the clever criminal, and puts the mentally deficient and uneducated behind bars by the hundreds of thousands.
Don't it make ya feel proud?

I am proud of the protections our system offers the accused, yes. Your nonsensical rendition, based on your complete ignorance of American criminal law, and based on your own preconceived, prejudiced notions, bears no resemblance to reality. It's just the ramblings of someone who knows little to nothing about which he pontificates.