10 ms·

Fifth Amendment Flowchart

196 points by apsec112 11y ago

ill0gicity 11y ago
That is one of the most impressive and informative flowcharts I've seen in a long time. The 5th Amendment is a tricky thing and this cleared it up quite a bit. That said, there will always be fringe cases and people should be using their brain and not just blindly following a flowchart.
- rcthompson 11y ago
  I don't know if this flowchart is intended as a practical guide so much as it is a statement on how difficult and complicated it is to actually invoke the 5th amendment.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's not complicated in the common case. Look at the flowchart again. "If an agent of the government is questioning you, then, to each question, state that you are invoking your Fifth Amendment right and then do not answer the question".
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Exactly. The flowchart is mainly about potential for deviations and corner case crap (Miranda). I mentally reduce it to this: If question, then assert Fifth Amendment and Lawyer. If search request, assert Fourth Amendment and Laywer where request isn't an allowed exception. Either way, repeatedly ask if you're free to go. And be respectful in attitude for best results. Eventually, they let you go, ticket you, hold you, or charge you.
- hamburglar 11y ago
  One thing it doesn't clear up for me is whether you can invoke the fifth amendment even in cases where there is not a specific crime you might incriminate yourself with. "Could your answer make it look like you committed a crime?" Considering that I have been advised that anything I say may be used against me, I would think that the answer to this question is inherently yes, even if I can't actually imagine how it might be used to incriminate me. Can I invoke the fifth simply on the principle of playing it extremely safe?
  - nabla9 11y ago
    You spotted the weak link in this flowchart: "Could YOUR answer (or silence) be used to make it look like YOU committed a CRIME". There is no way to know. When cop comes and casually talks to you, he may not even consider you a suspect until later. If you follow the watertight route, you may never talk to police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc You must have constant adversary attitude towards police asking questions in every situation. In practice people never do that and usually nothing bad happens, but still... It's part of the good police work to be casual and make people feel that people are jerks if they don't cooperate.
sdoering 11y ago
Seeing this I was stunned at how complicated this whole thing is (not being an American). Is this on purpose? And why? What (ow who) makes such laws so complicated, that you seem to have to study law to maneuver through these minefields.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I'm not a lawyer nor an American, but from I can tell, it's mostly the result of a simple rule applied to many edge cases over centuries of jurisprudence, which is much more important in the US than in civil law countries. For example, the whole Miranda rights thing came from a Supreme Court decision from 1966, not a law passed by Congress.
  - barsonme 11y ago
    Yeah. To follow up (and try to explain it in a way dumb people like me will understand) the US is big on "precedence", which essentially means if a court says, "We believe this law applies this way in this specific scenario" then another court can and likely will reference that previous decision while making its own ruling on a completely separate (but somehow related) case. As a hypothetical example, imagine a court 50 years ago said that talking to the police after invoking your 5th Amendment rights nullified your invocation of your rights. Then, a case appears where a suspect wasn't read his Miranda rights but had invoked the 5th, except he then spoke to the police immediately after (and nullified his previous invocation). Well, what if the court decides he can re-invoke his 5th Amendment rights once he's finally read his Miranda rights? Boom. More precedence. See how it can get complicated? It's almost kind of like when you have to write a bunch of edge-case code because weird "gotchas" keep cropping up and it's a bitch to rewrite the entire thing.
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      Best i can tell it is not just that it will be referenced, but that judges on the same tier of court is bound by that decision until a higher tier overrules it. This process btw is how USA effectively got software patents. A corporation or other applied for a patent on a production process that used a computer (and therefore software) to gain more precise control of the results than previous mechanical means. The patent holder was sued over it, and a judge ruled in the patent holders favor. This ruling was then used by other lawyers to press for "process" patents, where the process was described in software. And so far no higher court has overruled the initial ruling, thus effectively USA have software patents.
paulsutter 11y ago
Great flowchart. How about: "My lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions". Is that enough? Or does one need to explicitly add "I am invoking my rights under the fifth amendment"? Or explicitly state that "I want a lawyer" (which, doesn't make sense for a person who already has too many lawyers). I'm looking for one polite, simple, clear statement to use.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- masklinn 11y ago
  Bottom section: > YOUR magic words: "I'm not answering any question and I want a lawyer" then shut the fuck up. Although I think you have to provide your identity to officers? Not sure.
  - paulsutter 11y ago
    Yes, but I already have a lawyer, and I want to be polite. Police have plenty of ways to hassle you if they think you're a dick. And they'll reach that conclusion quickly and arbitrarily. I heard a story about Larry Ellison pulled over by the police in the parking lot of Oracle. Apparently he said "Call my lawyer", handed them his lawyer's card, and walked into the building.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      This is not the time for improvisation. While your version may be fine, lawyers say to use these phrases and they have many good reasons why they choose the words they use. At best, your variation will be equivalent to the recommended wordings, and you add the risk that your wording may not cover everything or a misuse of legal terms. There is another reason to use the recommended phrase, too: it's a standard. More people will immediately understand your intent (regardless of how they respond). > I want to be polite While general politeness is always a good idea, the police are not on your side and you absolutely should not go out of your way to appease them. If they want to hassle you, they are going to do it anyway. In practice, they probably already made their quick-and-arbitrary conclusion before they started talking to you. Don't take my word for it - this is the advice any decent lawyer will give you. I highly recommend watching this[1] lawyer explain the public<->police interaction, corroborated by a police officer who explains how they try to scam you into talking. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc edit: fixed minor editing error
venomsnake 11y ago
Obligatory - never talk to the police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- savingthrow 11y ago
  From the comments: > the long-short of this: Say nothing, ever, except “I am (ironically) exercising my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer”, unless your lawyer says you have to talk? (because we know cops can lie, so we can’t trust them to tell us how our rights are going to apply) > > That’s what you say if you’re in custodial interrogation, sure. But if it’s not law enforcement asking you the questions (or providing the forms to fill out, or whatever), you have to assert that you’re taking the privilege every time they ask a question. And there are some situations where the 5th Amendment will NOT apply, and you will have to answer or face penalties.
  - a3n 11y ago
    > because we know cops can lie I believe the following is what you meant, but to be clear, cops are allowed to lie. Or so I've read, and it's probably safest to assume they're both allowed and will.
    - talmand 11y ago
      Oh, they do. There's a number of cases where a confession was obtained on video because the cops flat out lied to the suspect.
  - iwwr 11y ago
    What if they hold you in a room for several hours under bright lights and without water?
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Well I am sure I could sue US in international court as torture.
36erhefg 11y ago
What I don't get why would you have to explicitly invoke your right to remain silent, if the law says that you have the then.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Ambiguity is the domain of lawyers...
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Because you also have the right not to remain silent. Explicitly invoking it makes it clear to all involved, and helps you out if they keep you awake for 36 hours and keep asking in hopes you get worn down.
- rayiner 11y ago
  You don't have the right to remain silent. You have the right not to be compelled to provide incriminating testimony. The cops have the right to ask you questions otherwise.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Um, the first line in the Miranda warning literally says you have the right to remain silent. That is for police questioning, which they can choose to do whether you answer or not. The fifth really won't come into play until sometime around being charged and questioned by a judge and/or prosecutor.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      The Miranda warning is layman's explanation of the right. It does not define the right itself. For example, if the police rush to the scene and A claims that B hit her, they can ask you "did you see B hit A?" and you don't have a right to stay silent.
      - talmand 11y ago
        The "right to remain silent" that is in the Miranda warning, laymen explanation or not, is in effect when you are under arrest and face police questioning. That is the situation that I'm referring to and your example is a completely different context. Although I would be curious as to the legalities as to a police officer having the ability to force an answer to a situation you are not directly involved with. A classic example is compelling testimony when you are a witness and your life has been threatened if you do give testimony. In those cases I know you have no right to be silent, you can be punished for doing so. But that's in a court of law and a cop asking you a question over the matter at the scene is an interesting variable. I suppose the cop could arrest you for obstruction of justice, but then the Miranda warning would then be in effect.
csandreasen 11y ago
The same site has a good Fourth Amendment flowchart as well: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 For what it's worth, the whole site is a good read for an introduction to American law.
- nickjackson 11y ago
  oh my!
- kethinov 11y ago
  They need a third amendment flowchart too. You never know when you might be unjustly asked to quarter soldiers.
  - ryan-c 11y ago
    There was recently a case where someone tried to claim a violation of the third amendment, but that claim was rejected. Some interesting arguments. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- scott_karana 11y ago
  It doesn't seem to include any of the NSA-style sealed court orders, does it?
ju-st 11y ago
Assuming that you were an evil mastermind, how could you hide the fact better that human rights are violated, but still be able to argue the converse?
skrowl 11y ago
Is there a 2nd amendment flowchart? I feel like we'll be needing one soon.
- coldpie 11y ago
  [ IS equipment vital to your hobby used to murder more than 10,000 people in the US per year? ] -> [ FIND a different hobby ]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - j_syk 11y ago
    So my hobbies of homebrewing (88k alcohol related deaths), motorcycle riding (5k), and driving cars(22k) should all be banned?
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      88k alcohol "related" deaths is a suspicious number, but the other two require permits and licensure with mandated learning periods and an in-person demonstration that you can safely handle the vehicle. Gun regulations vary from state to state, and such a requirement is not present nationwide.
      - talmand 11y ago
        Alcohol, motorcycle, and vehicle regulations also vary state-to-state. There are examples of operating a motorcycle and/or vehicle without a state license is allowed. You are required to have a license to operate the vehicle on public roads, for instance. Many states have similar regulations on carrying a weapon in public, versus having a gun only in your house. These states usually have similar requirements of training and demonstration of proficiency before granting a carry license. Although I've never heard of insurance for such a thing, but it wouldn't be a bad idea.
    - coldpie 11y ago
brainburn 11y ago
I guess law and programming aren't too different after all. Just that one is about creating and the other about getting f*cked over.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  Just to be clear, are you drawing this conclusion because they both can involve flowcharts?
- dmux 11y ago
  The latter is programming right?
aklemm 11y ago
Wonderful site. Does anyone know of other resources for the lay person to get a better grasp of the law, without becoming a laywer? Earlier in my adulthood, I would have appreciated a book explaining in very general terms what exactly lawyers do and some illustrative examples.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  You should read history rather than law books. Specifically, the history of English common law. Our entire legal system is built on it.
HeXetic 11y ago
People are commenting that this is a great flowchart, and I'd agree that it has some great information, but... what kind of awful flow chart has multiple outputs with the SAME value from them? I mean, really, do No Fifth Amendment protection against ANYONE ELSE using your words against you and If you say it to a friend, your boss, a cab driver, or on social media, your words are FAIR GAME really need two separate boxes?
- GavinMcG 11y ago
  I think so. Those are separate distinctions that people fail to make in other situations – e.g. the common online claim to having a First Amendment right to say whatever you want in the comments section – and dealing with them separately is worthwhile, in my mind. That said, the labels could have been more clear in that situation, and there were a few missing at the end of the whole thing.
thucydides 11y ago
I aced my criminal procedure and criminal law courses in law school and defended a few dozen accused criminals in federal and state courts. To be blunt, I don't see how anyone could possibly learn the law of self-incrimination from this chart. It's way too confusing. Maybe a Tufte acolyte could redesign it. If you want to learn the basics of self-incrimination law, check out these two lectures from FLETC (with transcripts!): 1. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-5th-amendment-mp3 https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-5th-amendment-mp3 2. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-waivers-and-invocations-mp3 https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-waivers-and-invocations-... Then, read the self-incrimination chapters in the book Examples and Explanations: Criminal Procedure (The Constitution and Police). http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanation-Procedure-Constitution-Explanations/dp/1454815469 http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanation-Procedure-Constit... Tada. You now know more about self-incrimination than 95% of practicing lawyers. Separately, the lawyers at FLETC deserve real praise for their lectures. They're clear and succinct when so much legal education is muddled nonsense. Listening to their Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) lectures before my 1L Constitutional criminal procedure exam was revelatory. https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap
gooseus 11y ago
Very nice, I actually just met this guy (Nathaniel Burney) yesterday at NY ComicCon, got a signed copy of his first book for $10: http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598391836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444400865&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598... I can't remember the booth #, but he was toward the back around Aisle 1200 for anyone who is going today or this weekend.

196 points by apsec112 11y ago

That is one of the most impressive and informative flowcharts I've seen in a long time. The 5th Amendment is a tricky thing and this cleared it up quite a bit. That said, there will always be fringe cases and people should be using their brain and not just blindly following a flowchart.

rcthompson 11y ago
I don't know if this flowchart is intended as a practical guide so much as it is a statement on how difficult and complicated it is to actually invoke the 5th amendment.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It's not complicated in the common case. Look at the flowchart again. "If an agent of the government is questioning you, then, to each question, state that you are invoking your Fifth Amendment right and then do not answer the question".
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Exactly. The flowchart is mainly about potential for deviations and corner case crap (Miranda). I mentally reduce it to this: If question, then assert Fifth Amendment and Lawyer. If search request, assert Fourth Amendment and Laywer where request isn't an allowed exception. Either way, repeatedly ask if you're free to go. And be respectful in attitude for best results. Eventually, they let you go, ticket you, hold you, or charge you.
hamburglar 11y ago
One thing it doesn't clear up for me is whether you can invoke the fifth amendment even in cases where there is not a specific crime you might incriminate yourself with. "Could your answer make it look like you committed a crime?" Considering that I have been advised that anything I say may be used against me, I would think that the answer to this question is inherently yes, even if I can't actually imagine how it might be used to incriminate me. Can I invoke the fifth simply on the principle of playing it extremely safe?
- nabla9 11y ago
  You spotted the weak link in this flowchart: "Could YOUR answer (or silence) be used to make it look like YOU committed a CRIME". There is no way to know. When cop comes and casually talks to you, he may not even consider you a suspect until later. If you follow the watertight route, you may never talk to police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc You must have constant adversary attitude towards police asking questions in every situation. In practice people never do that and usually nothing bad happens, but still... It's part of the good police work to be casual and make people feel that people are jerks if they don't cooperate.

sdoering 11y ago

Seeing this I was stunned at how complicated this whole thing is (not being an American). Is this on purpose? And why? What (ow who) makes such laws so complicated, that you seem to have to study law to maneuver through these minefields.

icebraining 11y ago
I'm not a lawyer nor an American, but from I can tell, it's mostly the result of a simple rule applied to many edge cases over centuries of jurisprudence, which is much more important in the US than in civil law countries. For example, the whole Miranda rights thing came from a Supreme Court decision from 1966, not a law passed by Congress.
- barsonme 11y ago
  Yeah. To follow up (and try to explain it in a way dumb people like me will understand) the US is big on "precedence", which essentially means if a court says, "We believe this law applies this way in this specific scenario" then another court can and likely will reference that previous decision while making its own ruling on a completely separate (but somehow related) case. As a hypothetical example, imagine a court 50 years ago said that talking to the police after invoking your 5th Amendment rights nullified your invocation of your rights. Then, a case appears where a suspect wasn't read his Miranda rights but had invoked the 5th, except he then spoke to the police immediately after (and nullified his previous invocation). Well, what if the court decides he can re-invoke his 5th Amendment rights once he's finally read his Miranda rights? Boom. More precedence. See how it can get complicated? It's almost kind of like when you have to write a bunch of edge-case code because weird "gotchas" keep cropping up and it's a bitch to rewrite the entire thing.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Best i can tell it is not just that it will be referenced, but that judges on the same tier of court is bound by that decision until a higher tier overrules it. This process btw is how USA effectively got software patents. A corporation or other applied for a patent on a production process that used a computer (and therefore software) to gain more precise control of the results than previous mechanical means. The patent holder was sued over it, and a judge ruled in the patent holders favor. This ruling was then used by other lawyers to press for "process" patents, where the process was described in software. And so far no higher court has overruled the initial ruling, thus effectively USA have software patents.

paulsutter 11y ago

Great flowchart. How about: "My lawyer would be happy to answer all your questions". Is that enough? Or does one need to explicitly add "I am invoking my rights under the fifth amendment"? Or explicitly state that "I want a lawyer" (which, doesn't make sense for a person who already has too many lawyers). I'm looking for one polite, simple, clear statement to use.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 11y ago
Bottom section: > YOUR magic words: "I'm not answering any question and I want a lawyer" then shut the fuck up. Although I think you have to provide your identity to officers? Not sure.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Yes, but I already have a lawyer, and I want to be polite. Police have plenty of ways to hassle you if they think you're a dick. And they'll reach that conclusion quickly and arbitrarily. I heard a story about Larry Ellison pulled over by the police in the parking lot of Oracle. Apparently he said "Call my lawyer", handed them his lawyer's card, and walked into the building.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    This is not the time for improvisation. While your version may be fine, lawyers say to use these phrases and they have many good reasons why they choose the words they use. At best, your variation will be equivalent to the recommended wordings, and you add the risk that your wording may not cover everything or a misuse of legal terms. There is another reason to use the recommended phrase, too: it's a standard. More people will immediately understand your intent (regardless of how they respond). > I want to be polite While general politeness is always a good idea, the police are not on your side and you absolutely should not go out of your way to appease them. If they want to hassle you, they are going to do it anyway. In practice, they probably already made their quick-and-arbitrary conclusion before they started talking to you. Don't take my word for it - this is the advice any decent lawyer will give you. I highly recommend watching this[1] lawyer explain the public<->police interaction, corroborated by a police officer who explains how they try to scam you into talking. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc edit: fixed minor editing error

venomsnake 11y ago

Obligatory - never talk to the police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

savingthrow 11y ago
From the comments: > the long-short of this: Say nothing, ever, except “I am (ironically) exercising my right to remain silent, and I want a lawyer”, unless your lawyer says you have to talk? (because we know cops can lie, so we can’t trust them to tell us how our rights are going to apply) > > That’s what you say if you’re in custodial interrogation, sure. But if it’s not law enforcement asking you the questions (or providing the forms to fill out, or whatever), you have to assert that you’re taking the privilege every time they ask a question. And there are some situations where the 5th Amendment will NOT apply, and you will have to answer or face penalties.
- a3n 11y ago
  > because we know cops can lie I believe the following is what you meant, but to be clear, cops are allowed to lie. Or so I've read, and it's probably safest to assume they're both allowed and will.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Oh, they do. There's a number of cases where a confession was obtained on video because the cops flat out lied to the suspect.
- iwwr 11y ago
  What if they hold you in a room for several hours under bright lights and without water?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Well I am sure I could sue US in international court as torture.

36erhefg 11y ago

What I don't get why would you have to explicitly invoke your right to remain silent, if the law says that you have the then.

digi_owl 11y ago
Ambiguity is the domain of lawyers...
ceejayoz 11y ago
Because you also have the right not to remain silent. Explicitly invoking it makes it clear to all involved, and helps you out if they keep you awake for 36 hours and keep asking in hopes you get worn down.
rayiner 11y ago
You don't have the right to remain silent. You have the right not to be compelled to provide incriminating testimony. The cops have the right to ask you questions otherwise.
- talmand 11y ago
  Um, the first line in the Miranda warning literally says you have the right to remain silent. That is for police questioning, which they can choose to do whether you answer or not. The fifth really won't come into play until sometime around being charged and questioned by a judge and/or prosecutor.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The Miranda warning is layman's explanation of the right. It does not define the right itself. For example, if the police rush to the scene and A claims that B hit her, they can ask you "did you see B hit A?" and you don't have a right to stay silent.
    - talmand 11y ago
      The "right to remain silent" that is in the Miranda warning, laymen explanation or not, is in effect when you are under arrest and face police questioning. That is the situation that I'm referring to and your example is a completely different context. Although I would be curious as to the legalities as to a police officer having the ability to force an answer to a situation you are not directly involved with. A classic example is compelling testimony when you are a witness and your life has been threatened if you do give testimony. In those cases I know you have no right to be silent, you can be punished for doing so. But that's in a court of law and a cop asking you a question over the matter at the scene is an interesting variable. I suppose the cop could arrest you for obstruction of justice, but then the Miranda warning would then be in effect.

csandreasen 11y ago

The same site has a good Fourth Amendment flowchart as well: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 For what it's worth, the whole site is a good read for an introduction to American law.

nickjackson 11y ago
oh my!
kethinov 11y ago
They need a third amendment flowchart too. You never know when you might be unjustly asked to quarter soldiers.
- ryan-c 11y ago
  There was recently a case where someone tried to claim a violation of the third amendment, but that claim was rejected. Some interesting arguments. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
scott_karana 11y ago
It doesn't seem to include any of the NSA-style sealed court orders, does it?

ju-st 11y ago

Assuming that you were an evil mastermind, how could you hide the fact better that human rights are violated, but still be able to argue the converse?

skrowl 11y ago

Is there a 2nd amendment flowchart? I feel like we'll be needing one soon.

coldpie 11y ago
[ IS equipment vital to your hobby used to murder more than 10,000 people in the US per year? ] -> [ FIND a different hobby ]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- j_syk 11y ago
  So my hobbies of homebrewing (88k alcohol related deaths), motorcycle riding (5k), and driving cars(22k) should all be banned?
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    88k alcohol "related" deaths is a suspicious number, but the other two require permits and licensure with mandated learning periods and an in-person demonstration that you can safely handle the vehicle. Gun regulations vary from state to state, and such a requirement is not present nationwide.
    - talmand 11y ago
      Alcohol, motorcycle, and vehicle regulations also vary state-to-state. There are examples of operating a motorcycle and/or vehicle without a state license is allowed. You are required to have a license to operate the vehicle on public roads, for instance. Many states have similar regulations on carrying a weapon in public, versus having a gun only in your house. These states usually have similar requirements of training and demonstration of proficiency before granting a carry license. Although I've never heard of insurance for such a thing, but it wouldn't be a bad idea.
  - coldpie 11y ago

brainburn 11y ago

I guess law and programming aren't too different after all. Just that one is about creating and the other about getting f*cked over.

mfoy_ 11y ago
Just to be clear, are you drawing this conclusion because they both can involve flowcharts?
dmux 11y ago
The latter is programming right?

aklemm 11y ago

Wonderful site. Does anyone know of other resources for the lay person to get a better grasp of the law, without becoming a laywer? Earlier in my adulthood, I would have appreciated a book explaining in very general terms what exactly lawyers do and some illustrative examples.

vinceguidry 11y ago
You should read history rather than law books. Specifically, the history of English common law. Our entire legal system is built on it.

HeXetic 11y ago

People are commenting that this is a great flowchart, and I'd agree that it has some great information, but... what kind of awful flow chart has multiple outputs with the SAME value from them? I mean, really, do No Fifth Amendment protection against ANYONE ELSE using your words against you and If you say it to a friend, your boss, a cab driver, or on social media, your words are FAIR GAME really need two separate boxes?

GavinMcG 11y ago
I think so. Those are separate distinctions that people fail to make in other situations – e.g. the common online claim to having a First Amendment right to say whatever you want in the comments section – and dealing with them separately is worthwhile, in my mind. That said, the labels could have been more clear in that situation, and there were a few missing at the end of the whole thing.

thucydides 11y ago

I aced my criminal procedure and criminal law courses in law school and defended a few dozen accused criminals in federal and state courts. To be blunt, I don't see how anyone could possibly learn the law of self-incrimination from this chart. It's way too confusing. Maybe a Tufte acolyte could redesign it. If you want to learn the basics of self-incrimination law, check out these two lectures from FLETC (with transcripts!): 1. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-5th-amendment-mp3 https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-5th-amendment-mp3 2. https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-waivers-and-invocations-mp3 https://www.fletc.gov/audio/miranda-waivers-and-invocations-... Then, read the self-incrimination chapters in the book Examples and Explanations: Criminal Procedure (The Constitution and Police). http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanation-Procedure-Constitution-Explanations/dp/1454815469 http://www.amazon.com/Examples-Explanation-Procedure-Constit... Tada. You now know more about self-incrimination than 95% of practicing lawyers. Separately, the lawyers at FLETC deserve real praise for their lectures. They're clear and succinct when so much legal education is muddled nonsense. Listening to their Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) lectures before my 1L Constitutional criminal procedure exam was revelatory. https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap https://www.fletc.gov/4th-amendment-roadmap

gooseus 11y ago

Very nice, I actually just met this guy (Nathaniel Burney) yesterday at NY ComicCon, got a signed copy of his first book for $10: http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598391836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444400865&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Guide-Criminal-Law/dp/1598... I can't remember the booth #, but he was toward the back around Aisle 1200 for anyone who is going today or this weekend.