3 ms·
TLDR: The lawyer in the viral YouTube video on not talking to the police has written a book on it. Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke t
by tsomctl 10y ago
TLDR: The lawyer in the viral YouTube video on not talking to the police has written a book on it. Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt.
- SamReidHughes 10y ago> Also, due to a Supreme Court ruling, saying that you invoke the 5th amendment can be seen as admitting guilt. If you say it by not saying it, after answering a bunch of questions.
- michaelmrose 10y agoIf I badger you endlessly with false accusations it's likely that you will eventually stop replying.
- SamReidHughes 10y agoSo? My point is, the TLDR is just plain wrong.
- michaelmrose 10y agoI don't think so. There are tons of great reasons not to answer police questions ruling puts innocent defendants in the position in the position of answering to their detriment or having their silence used against them. This shouldn't even be constitutionally allowed.
- pervycreeper 10y agoAlso, his name is James Duane, and the book's title is "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent", in case anyone is interested.
- aidenn0 10y agoIANAL, but my understanding of the supreme court decision is that if you stop answering questions, that can be presented to a jury as evidence that you may be guilty. A stupid example: Q: Did you kill Alice? A: No. Q: Did you kill Bob? A: No. Q: Did you kill Carol? A: silence They can then make the argument in court that since you stopped answering questions at the 3rd one that you are trying to hide something. This is why the advice is to just straight up refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. "I want a lawyer" is not refusing to answer the question, just delaying it, so may not be covered by the current precedent.
- mark212 10y agoI am a lawyer, and a former prosecutor and former defense attorney (I do civil law now). And invocation of your right to counsel is supposed to terminate all questioning. Very clear that it cannot be presented as evidence if the matter goes to trial.
- aidenn0 10y agoMy understanding is that in Salinas v. Texas the issue was that the defendant did not explicitly invoke this right, but was quiet; though apparently, at least one of the Justices was of the opinion that the 5th amendment rights do not apply when the person being questioned is not being detained.
- angry_octet 10y agoNot just actively invoking the fifth, but talking non-specifically to the police, and then choosing not to answer further questions when it becomes clear they are investigating you, is now explicitly evidence of guilt, which is absurd. So the only option is not to speak at all beyond the required minimum. Also, I'd say this is not the sort of thing one should tldr.