cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/28115777
… I don’t… understand…
Depends where you live
I heard about a guy in my country who admitted to have murdered someone
but the police couldn’t prove he did it - so he walked.
They then later found the real killer. the first guy “confessed” to it because he thought he didn’t have any other way out.
The police have to prove it - a confession can be unrealiable
at least where i live. in the US people are threatened with jail-time by the police, just to force a confession, so they can close the case and move on. Even though the police doesn’t throw people in jail… a judge does.
Many serial killers, murderers or just plain weird people would claim they’ve done it even if they didnt. For the most part they just want some spotlight, or if just a weird person/homeless - to go to jail just to not to stay on the streets. So, I agree that even if they admitted to it - justice system still has to prove they’ve done it.
just to force a confession, so they can close the case and move on.
this is the part that frustrates me the most having interacted with law enforcement from the victim side and from the administrative side; bad cops make it harder for everyone. when they subvert the law it’s not just violating innocent people’s rights, you’re denying justice to the victims by/and letting the criminal get away with it, who will most certainly go on to crime more and cost society shit tons of money; it should be their fucking job to find the actual criminal and proceed lawfully.
it’s all so backwards, so dumb and wasteful.
Was his name Gun Rack?
Yes this only works in the US. No matter what they say, the only words that should be coming out of your mouth is “I would like to speak with a lawyer”. And then close your mouth. Police in the US are allowed to lie to you to get the information they* need, but asking for a lawyer right at the start shuts the entire conversation down before they even get a chance to do so. In the US.
or at least it used to
FYI:
Later, at his trial, prosecutors told jurors that his silence in the face of that question showed that he was guilty,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Understand how to invoke your right to remain silent and what consequences silence or otherwise may have–especially if improperly used.
How?
You tell them you want your lawyer and you will not answer any questions until you see them. Your lawyer will tell you how to proceed.
If the police have nothing on you and wanted to fish something out of you, your lawyer will get you free. If the police have something against you and are pursuing further, your lawyer will inform you of what your options are. But generally, this is when you’re going to have to deal with this shit. It doesn’t matter if you did it or not at that point, but a lawyer will be your best bet to make it out on best grounds - whether that is get out free or with the smallest fine/sentence.
Just know:- if the police has something on you, and you did it, its game over, a lawyer may help ease the price you pay
- if the police has something on you, and you didn’t do it, its an unfortunate situation, a lawyer may help ease the price you pay or get you off free
- if the police has nothing on you, and you did it, though unethical, a lawyer will get you off free
- if the police has nothing on you, and you didn’t do it, a lawyer will get you off free
a lawyer will get you off free
You have to pay the lawyer.
I mean, it’s fun to believe there’s this One Neat Trick to avoid being wrongfully convicted. If you’re just smart enough, educated enough, and cool in the moment, you can outfox the police, the DA, and the judge using a proven formula laid out in the US Constitution.
But then you hear how these stories play out - cops outright lying to people they’re interviewing, DAs lying about what you’re being accused of, defense attorneys working with the prosecution, suspects being held for days or weeks without habeas corpus, suspects being threatened, suspects being tortured, suspects being lynched in their cells.
There’s no “winning move” absent having friends on the outside of the system willing and able to lobby on your behalf.
There might not be a winning move, but there are definitely losing moves, and not making them helps you… well, not lose.
“I invoke my right to remain silent”
“I want a lawyer”
that works unless you live in louisiana:
https://archive.findlaw.com/blog/lawyer-dog-appeal-denied-by-overly-semantic-court/
Invoking your fifth amendment cannot be used to as evidence against you in a criminal court, but it can be used in civil cases. Its called adverse inference. Basically in a civil court if you refuse to provide information, it can be used against you to decide a fine or penalty. But it cannot lead to your incarceration under a criminal indictment. Griffin V California from '65
That’s pretty good to know, as far as I understand the fifth is to be used exclusively in the context of presumption of innocence and protection of civils from authority. It would be very fucked up if some jerk would turn it on it’s head and argue that you not saying some shit that may incriminate you as far as you know is actually incriminating itself. That’s how oppressive regimes work.
Yes, but the case being referenced involved what it means to invoke your fifth amendment rights.
Is remaining silent invoking the right, or do you have to state “I am invoking the right to remain silent”, or some other statement?Per the supreme Court, you can’t passively invoke the right and can only do so actively. So simply not answering a question isn’t invoking the fifth amendment and could be used against you.
That seems fucking stupid as hell, why do you need to “invoke” any right at all? And why would there be a requirement to access this right that most people wouldn’t know
You’re talking about a country where “I want a lawyer, dawg” is not sufficient to be provided a lawyer, because the cops can reasonably think that you want a dog that’s a lawyer. The legal system in the US is beyond saving.
Please tell me this isn’t true. Lie to me if required. I can’t handle any more America. This may be the metaphorical straw
Da fuck?
Maybe you should just always say that you did it. Everything else is not worth the effort. The system is fucked and Americans too
Every part of our collective absurdity permeates all facets of our life. Just look at our ad space and signage. Food requirements or lack thereof. Civil service (one worker, six supervisors). Everything in any system of ours is absurd on levels no one person can truly fathom.
It’s our strength and weakness.
“Credo quia absurdum”, translated “I believe because it is absurd”
After adopting this belief, a peace will descend upon you
Because the US legislature stopped making laws, courts make laws instead, and they do it based on who’s taking them on luxury trips.
The US legislature is in effect half a dozen sugar babies.
Because the US legislature stopped making laws
They haven’t stopped making laws. We are inundated with new laws every legislation cycle (the current cycle being more an exception than a rule). But the enforcement of these laws is up to the various USA offices. And the judicial bench has been stacked with ultra-conservative judges more interested in Christian morality than civil rights or social equity.
Consequently, what laws we do get are often twisted against their stated purpose by subsequent administrations.
You’re not wrong.
There is a rationale, it just fails to be consistent with the reason the right is explicitly enumerated.
Some rights are more about restraining the governments actions towards you. The right to legal counsel prohibits the government from putting you on trial totally lost and oblivious. The right to remain silent is a nickname we give to the prohibition on someone being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”.
Rights that prohibit government actions are usually automatic: free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, and so on all prohibit the government from doing something.
The right to counsel requires the government to provide you with a lawyer if you need one, and to stop asking you questions if you ask for one until they show up.The conservative supreme Court majority held that the “right to remain silent” was a right to make the government stop, just like asking for a lawyer, and that it didn’t follow that the two rights needed to be invoked in different manners: no one has argued that their behavior should have implied they wanted a lawyer even if they didn’t say so. Further, they said that if “not speaking” is what constitutes invoking the fifth, then it opens more questions about what manner of not speaking counts as an invocation. If someone doesn’t answer, can the cop repeat themselves?
Invoking the right however is unambiguous, making it a better legal standard.This falls apart not because of the nickname we give the right, but because of what it says and the intent behind it: “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The key word is “compelled”. The phrasing and intent are clear that it’s about compulsion , not invoking an entitlement. Any statement you make you should be able to refuse to allow to be used against you, otherwise it’s compulsion even if given willingly at the time.
That’s great but we’re talking about Miranda rights and case law and all kinds of adjunct shit based around these ideas that formed the basis of what cops can do to you in custody like this, and they tell you explicitly “you have the right to remain silent”.
That’s not constitutional, that seems to be the police informing you of something that their processes and procedures say they have to do. You are told explicitly “YOU MAY NOW REMAIN SILENT” by the authority figure standing in front of you, not some abstract judge of an arcane document somewhere
Those are explicitly derived from the bit of the constitution I was referring to. That’s what defines what they have to tell you and what it means.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. You asked why you would need to invoke a right, and why it would be this way. There’s simply isn’t an answer that doesn’t involve the constitution or judges. The authority figure is using words that judges outlined the basic gist of in 1965 and different judges have dialed back the protections of in the 2000s and earlier.
I think the question he has is why would you have to ‘invoke’ a right they literally spelled out to you just seconds before?
If the cop pointed to a glass of water on the table and said ‘you have the right to drink this water’ and you drink the water, and later you’re prosecuted for stealing water, or your blatant disregard for property was used against you in court, because you didn’t explicitly state ‘ok, i am invoking my right to drink this water’…
Aside from emotionally abusive relationships, what other party of life are you explicitly told you have the right to do something and then abused for doing it? It’s basically manipulation disguised as helpful information.
Remember, the system of “law” was never designed to help the people, only reinforce the rule of the owning class over the masses. The system originates from the dictates of kings.
The modern iteration is intentionally convoluted to ensure that the majority, who cannot afford quality counsel, cannot leverage the law against the owning-class, who have access to insurmountable resources and legal advantages.
Because everyone thinks they’re just going to either explain what happened and it’ll all be fine (it won’t), or they think they can just weave a great big lie and the cops will buy it (they won’t). Don’t talk to the police without an attourney. If you’re in that chair, it’s because they want to implicate you in some way, regardless of right or wrong. While they might throw a fit about it, refusing to speak without an attourney present is your right and is in no way an admission of guilt.
Either that, or police use the Reid technique and subject you to interrogation and psychological torture for multiple days while keeping you in maximum security in prison, of course unfortunately without any recording (a lá Richard Allen - and what a tank he was, withstood their interrogation for superhuman amounts of time until they finally broke him).
So yeah there’s 2 ways: corrupt police departments and criminals that are way too confident.
explain what happened and it’ll all be fine (it won’t)
A few times during traffic stops when I was younger (white male), I was so defenseless and trusting that in retrospect I can tell the cops were befuddled and just let me go even though I admitted to an infraction.
That said the stakes couldn’t have been lower, and I wouldn’t try it again.
a town next to the one i grew up in was notorious for asshole cops. i got stopped there multiple times as a teenager under false traffic bullshit ‘you ran a red’ etc. we were dumb and just let the cops search our cars and accuse us of being high and etc. they found nothing, but usually let us go after trying to intimidate us for an hour. i had one of them try to tell me my cd to tape player was illegal or something and threaten to arrest me for having burned cds.
i think they just want us to freak out or cry or something. they usually got pissed off with our polite compliance.
You do have to specifically invoke the right, though. But all you really have to say is, “I’m invoking my 5th amendment right to stay silent and will not be answering questions without an attorney present.”
You also should request that attorney.
Just make sure you don’t ask for an attorney dog.
Just leaving this here.
and the cops will buy it (they won’t).
The vast majority of cops are really dumb, so I disagree with this statement. However, cops are highly motivated to not give a shit about whether a suspect is actually guilty. They’re motivated to get a confession or conviction, regardless of innocence or guilt.
I would qualify this further to say that cops are motivated to make as many arrests and lay as many charges that have a potential to get a conviction as possible. They don’t really care if half or more of the charges get downgraded or tossed out, but they will charge a person with ABCDWXYZ during an arrest, because that looks good to them. If the DA only gets B and X to stick, that’s fine, they got their arrest. It’s the scattergun approach to charging people and arresting them.
There’s a fair chance that wherever you go, whatever you do, there is something about you, your conduct during questioning, or your property that a cop can cite, charge or arrest you for. This is by design. This an age-old tactic by dictatorships and opressive regimes that work in their favour. It’s illegal for you to be you, and you aren’t locked up only by the grace of the oppressor. The result they want is that you behave, comply, and be quiet, or they will find something about you to bust you for.
Assuming the cops are dumb (enough) is a really risky strategy. And even if you are lucky and they are, they might just end up making a lucky guess.
Plus, they’ve been through this game hundreds of times, while you most likely have quite limited experience with the system (hopefully). Never underestimate that.
Assuming the cops are dumb (enough) is a really risky strategy.
I am not saying to assume that they’re dumb. I’m saying to assume that they’re malicious
That is a much safer assumption. Assume they are both malicious and smart. If they aren’t, you haven’t lost anything (except for the very small chance to get away with something, but if you rely on the cops being benevolent and/or dumb, maybe overthink your whole plan).
No. Assuming they’re smart isn’t necessary, nor is it realistic.
All you need to assume is that they’re malicious. They are rewarded for fucking people over. That’s all that matters
Now grow up and quit insisting on having the last word in the argument as if that makes you right
Nice bait: do I take it, and therefore lose, or do I not, and therefore let you have the last word?
Eh, we all know it. I am right, since I have the last word. I work at a pretty slow job, I have unlimited coffee and time, try me.
FYI, you need to say “I’m invoking my right to remain silent” or similar before going quiet. Just shutting your mouth and refusing to say absolutely anything will make it worse.
If you have to say a certain phrase in order to get granted a right, then it’s not a right, it’s just a spell you have access to.
Ah, right. The Supreme Court decided we only get to have the rights we can remember under any given circumstance. Don’t let the cops catch you sleeping. Totally normal stuff in a totally normal democracy. Not at all a sign of any sort.
This is not entirely accurate.
If you clam up pre-Miranda warning, it can be used against you (if you didn’t specifically exercise your rights).
Case law about this: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/178/
Post-Miranda warning, there’s no issue. The warning literally advises you of your right to be silent.
It seems that you can’t invoke your rights pre-Miranda and before arrest, as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
I don’t know how that works specifically, but I expect nobody will allow you
moreyour rights whenever they canThat’s not entirely accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Your fifth amendment rights haven’t been invoked until you say so. The Miranda warning isn’t a guide for how to invoke the rights, just a notification that you have them.
Now, it’s ridiculous that we’ve ended up here and it was a terrible ruling, both of them, but if you’re just quiet you haven’t invoked your right to silence anymore than you’ve invoked your right to legal counsel.
Which is a hell of a position for the court to take on coerced confessions.
“I declare bankruptcy!”
Yo I swear to god.
So I got arrested for “aggravated assult” because I defended myself against a racist bully in highschool
And you know what the fuck did my mom do, start fucking discussing about the details of case during the parent meeting thing.
And also like literally the next day when I had to go to the juvenile court system thing, my mom keeps saying a bunch of shit to the court staff, WHO IS NOT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER BTW.
Mom wtf, are your stupid. Are you TRYING to fuck it up even more? Shut the fuck up.
Literally I keep trying to tell her to shut the fuck up, stoping mentioning details other than just simply deny the allegations.
(Charges ended up dropped)
Also btw, I start using a non-english language to talk to my mom (cuz English isn’t our Native Language) and the court staff immediately got more aggressive with their tone and treated me as though I was conspiring with mom about something. And they demanded for us to use English. Xenophobic pieces of shit court system.
I’m glad I had Citizenship, the system would literally attempt to deport a minor over a school fight. Cruel as fuck.
I mean strictly speaking by using a language other than the native one of the court you were conspiring with your mother.
Conspiring is just planning or acting jointly with another in secret in its most mundane form.
If your hiding your conversation by changing the language that is text book boring mundane conspiracy.
Even if you didn’t intend to hide it, you were in fact doing so. It’s entirely understandable for a court to demand you speak the language of the court or have a translator present to ensure everyone understands.
“the native one of the court” but the US doesn’t have an official language
I don’t think I was technically in a court room.
It’s… okay I’m no laywer, but it felt more like just some court staff reading out / explaining the charges in a small room, it didn’t really feel like a court hearing or anything, at least it didn’t seem like it.
I honestly was so confused af and wasn’t sure what was happening.
Funnily enough, the supreme court ruled that you cannot invoke your right to remain silent by remaining silent. You have to actually say something about “I want a lawyer.”
Why the fuck do you have to invoke it at all? It’s a right. They should all be invoked by default.
Because they wanted to prosecute a guy who used that right, and they decided it needed to be reinterpreted to suit their desires.
The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it’s the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don’t just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.
Considering the right isn’t the “right to remain silent” we nickname it, but No person shall be … compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it’s a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said “stop”, you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.
Seems pretty clear to me. Not a nickname. All silence after that point is perfectly warranted and should not be held against them. They can ask all the questions they want but they’re not entitled to answers.
Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.
The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn’t need to be read exactly because it’s a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
It’s not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
The reason there’s a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they’ve been rolling back the protections for years.
Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn’t need to fully explain your rights?That was from the wikipedia page about it and lined up with every variation of it I can recall hearing, which are derived from the original Miranda court decision. “You have the right to remain silent” was always part of it. SO if they say those words and a person does not speak to them afterwards it SHOULD be assumed that they are utilizing that right.
I’m not arguing what you explicitly need to do in reality. I’m arguing that reality is bullshit and there’s no actual justification to expect people to explicitly invoke their rights. If you by default have no rights unless you request them, or you are judged as guilty for using them without asking, they’re not rights.
I agree with you. It’s just that the “right to remain silent” is the name for the category of right that the fifth amendment provides, not the actual right.
The reason the interpretation is bullshit is because what the actual amendment says is stronger than a simple right to not speak: it’s very clearly intended to be freedom from being coerced to provide information that could hurt you. They shouldn’t be able to interrogate you at all until you clearly waive the right against self incrimination.
You don’t have the literal right to remain silent. You have the right to tell them to stop coercing you, after which they have to end the interrogation.It’s not generally uncommon to have to do something to exercise a right. No one is passively invoking the right to petition their representatives or own weapons. The supreme Court has just unfortunately held that you have to tell the cops to stop pressuring you, instead of them not being able to start.
he wasn’t so silent when he voluntarily went on the news and basically let everyone know he was involved by having a panic attack on live tv.
Who is this and does that matter for the sake of the post?
iirc he murdered a woman and scattered her body parts in trash cans on a college campus. I might be thinking of someone else because it has been a while but I pretty sure this is the guy. They spent hours trying to interrogate him and he effectively said nothing while remaining uncannily still. It sort of matters for the post but not that much.
The sped up video where you see him not move at all for ages is quite unnerving.
36:15 in this video for anyone curious. It’s creepy as hell.
Here’s a link to the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lauren_Giddings?wprov=sfla1
Wow, what a tragedy. She was studying to be a public defender too.
Thanks for the context
Your silence will be used against you.
It actually legally can be used against you if you go silent before being told you have the right to stay silent
The logic being…why would someone go silent before they’ve even been officially warned about it
I think the problem is more like:
They trick you into talking about the weather, then suddenly be like: “Yea, such a great weather, it’s such a shame that the victim couldn’t enjoy seeing this because you murdered the victim”
Then you remain silent without verbally invoking the right to remain silent
So the prosecutors are gonna be like: “SEE, HE IS GUILTY SINCE HE SUDDENTLY BECAME QUIET!”
The low standards of US law enforcement never cease to amaze me…
Indeed, it’s very important to know your rights
Although legally if a cop asks you any question related to the investigation they must give you the Miranda warning that tells you the right to remain silent
In your example if the cop never gave a Miranda warning then it would probably be an inadmissible statement in court
They don’t need to give a warning unless you are in custodial interrogation
They could just put you in a room and not ask questions, have a cop sit there, bait you into wanting to have a conversation since you’re bored (its human psychology to want to talk when you’re bored).
And they could also ask questions before an arrest, those are admissible as long as you weren’t under arrest at the time.
There’s a lot of sheanigans they could try.
They never gave me a miranda warning when I got arrested. I didn’t say anything but I bet the other kids who are less smart would be yapping during the ride to the police station. Those statements would probably¹ be admissible because its not a custodial interrogation (since the cops didn’t technically initiate questioning, the suspect just started talking).
¹I am not a lawyer
Literally wtf, those other kids all just admitted to their crimes and I overheard all of them talking (we got held in the same tiny-ass room). Some of them stole stuff, carjacking, all that stuff. Meanwhile all I did was self-defence. I never admitted to any guilt, but I did say to the cellmates that I “fought back after the other person instigated it” which probably wasn’t worded the most innocent way possible, but that does not really admit guilt.
(btw we were all minors)
Yeah custodial interrogation is a funny concept but in fairness if you confess to a silent cop because you got bored that’s probably on you
I’m not a lawyer but assuming it’s not just lazy sloppy police work I’m pretty sure what they probably hope for are you all to snitch on each other. Which seems obvious but I’m 99% sure if you all snitch on each other without Miranda they can use your statements against each other just not against yourself. So your statement is valid against your friend, your friend against you, but your own statements aren’t valid against yourselves. Sorry I’m doing a shitty job explaining it but yeah that’s a huge loophole
To the best of my knowledge you telling someone you did something and them telling the cop is a good example of hearsay, or at least pretty arguable.
Far easier to just have a standard camera in the room, since a video of a confession is far more compelling and sidesteps any arguments about hearsay.
If you confess a crime to anyone, that’s an admission against party interest. And it can usually come in under that hearsay exception. It’s pretty common for cops to testify to what the defendant said in custody, and also for jailhouse snitches to testify to what the defendant said in custody (i.e. this is not a special cop hearsay exception).
And the kicker is that this doesn’t help you, the defendant. Anything you say will be used against you, but it can’t ever be used for you. Because as soon as you’re trying to introduce your own prior statements, it’s inadmissable hearsay and not an admission against interest any more.
You’re right though that it’s going to be an argument on this every time.
It’s not about confessing, it’s about being tricked into saying something innocuous in context that they twist to implicate you anyway.
Fun fact: if you haven’t been mirandized your silence is admissable, but not your answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas
The correct answer is to plead the fifth if a cop says hello.
It would be great if our system was set up such that there were people responsible for public safety the way firefighters are and, also like firefighters, don’t have the looming threat of crushing you with the weight of the law, but unlike firefighters don’t need to be ready next to a lot of bulky specialized equipment to be effective.
But it’s not, so…
The nature of bad faith is that there is no right asnwer.
I wouldn’t call life in prison “win”.
I remember this interrogation. Fatso on the left kept getting in his face, telling him to make eye contact, so dude stared into his soul for the entire rest of the interview without moving. The detective ended up getting uncomfortable and had to lean back in his seat hahaha. Homie was creepy as hell.
Thanks for the soda & snacks, but the only person I’m talking to is my attorney.
My wife watches these shows. I want to scream at the white trash morons incriminating themselves. This is why I wear ear plugs and read a book in bed.
