4 ms·
In one of my stints of jury service, the accused had heavily exercised his right to silence over a lengthy period. At the subsequent trial the judge made a poin
by NeedMoreTea 7y ago
In one of my stints of jury service, the accused had heavily exercised his right to silence over a lengthy period. At the subsequent trial the judge made a point of instructing the jury we must infer nothing at all from his silence and judge solely on the facts of the case, as presented in court.
I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against, and how, but it is absolutely nowhere near obstruction of justice or contempt of court.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago> I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against Technically this is true. If you make a statement to the police, then that statement can be used as evidence at trial (both against you and in your defence). If you don’t make a statement, then the only way to get your testimony in front of the jury (should that be necessary), is to take the stand, where you will be subjected to cross examination. A process where you (probably not a lawyer) will have to argue with a lawyer who will be doing their best to make you trip over every single thing you say, in front of a jury, for a number of hours. So while it does potentially have a benefit, it’s still always a bad idea, because you’ll want to see the discovery before you say anything at all.
- jhauris 7y agoThat benefit seems extremely marginal when the presumption if innocence is the standard. Your explanation for the UK police caution phrasing makes perfect sense, but I wonder now if it's not meant to scare people into talking?
- AmericanChopper 7y agoThe presumption of innocence is theoretical at best. A prosecutor will present a theory of the case along with their evidence. Simply undermining that theory is often not enough to convince a jury, they’ll often expect the defence to put forward and substantiate a superior theory. I don’t know the motives of putting that in the warning. But it is at least true, even if it’s almost universally not a good idea.
- andyjpb 7y agoAs I understand it, it was due to some problems that were repeatedly encountered when trying to prosecute members of the Provisional IRA. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/20/newsid_2490000/2490023.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/20/...