6 ms·

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they g

> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope, they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you get people for “lying”. The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something to hang me by if you let me ramble for hours. > You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie). I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. What we have to remember is it is just a job for law enforcement and prosecutors. It is best to think of them as machines that act on some kind of feedback loop (incentives). We cannot directly make improvements to the machines. We have to try to change the incentive structure if we want any change in how the machines work. So the question is: what are the incentives and what needs changing?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mdorazio 7y ago
>I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty. But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible. The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- kazagistar 7y ago
  Could you submit that video to the jury as reasoning for having called the lawyer?
- mikhailt 7y ago
  No, it isn't, it is the only sane advice you will get. We are turning into a country where your first action should always be, stay quiet and call a lawyer first. 1. Police and prosecutor will pull your records anyway, they generally look at spouse and people close to you first regardless of your innocence. 2. If this is the only evidence they have on your guilt, then you're likely to win on appeal if the jury is insane enough to find your guilt based on zero evidence.
  - danenania 7y ago
    While it may be beneficial if the police decide you’re a suspect, on the other hand it would also seem to ensure that they will view you as a suspect and investigate the hell out of you. Perhaps they do this with spouses anyway, but it still seems like you’d be drawing extra suspicion. It’s a tough one. I also imagine it’s very difficult to make a decision like this when distraught. I‘m pretty sure I’d (perhaps foolishly) only be thinking about finding my spouse, not the legal implications for myself. It seems like this would be the case for the vast majority of people in that situation.
    - AcerbicZero 7y ago
      If the police are actively investigating anything that involves them speaking to you, you need a lawyer, as you're well past the point of being concerned about "drawing extra attention". I'm not saying be that guy at the DUI checkpoint screaming about being a sovereign citizen (Although I do have a fair bit of sympathy for them) but you can talk yourself into way more trouble than you're going to be able to talk yourself out of.
      - danenania 7y ago
        If I’m understanding correctly, we’re just talking about the initial call to the police when your spouse is missing. I totally agree with you if they ask to interview you after that point, but making the first call (when time may be critical) to a lawyer seems extreme. That’s not to say it’s necessarily wrong of course, but I think the average person would likely see that as strange/suspicious (including cops and jury members).
- basseq 7y ago
  > use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty Would that even be admissible?
  - pc86 7y ago
    Phone records are used as evidence in criminal proceedings all the time.
    - basseq 7y ago
      Yes, but phone records with your lawyer strikes me as a little different than "we see you called the hitman a week before the murder!" It comes down to the "calling a lawyer constitutes guilt" argument, which seems like it would cause any judge to roll her eyes.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid. But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justice system, with good outcome for people who can afford good lawers and people qho cannot. When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. But it makes sense, that lawers think different about that.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    I haven't watched it in a while, so I may get some specifics wrong, but it goes through various hypotheticals, until finally getting to the point where you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, but talking to the police gets you convicted. IIRC the example was you saying "I was out of town visiting my mom when the crime happened" but they have a (mistaken) witness putting you near the scene. The fact that you (supposedly) lied about where you were combined with other circumstantial evidence may be enough to convict you. Note also that even an innocent person will almost always give contradicting accounts of a situation if interrogated for long enough. [edit] There were several such examples, including the one I remembered from 14-23 minutes.
  - bsder 7y ago
    > Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police. He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You simply can't know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to narrow the scope immediately. At that point you can address the actual charges rather than letting the police fish through hours of your babbling hunting for something to hang you with. > When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?
- snowron6 7y ago
  A significantly shorter video with a similar message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs
i_am_proteus 7y ago
> It's my best piece of advice — and the advice most consistently ignored. If you're dealing with the government, and you are in any doubt, why won't you just shut up? https://www.popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-pointlessly/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostl...
- greenyoda 7y ago
  Note that the author of this article is a former federal prosecutor, so he's an expert on this subject.
drak0n1c 7y ago
Roger Stone as well - the only charges brought against him were for lying during interrogations. His ego and boisterous storytelling habit did him in. Being in and out of the White House over the decades and friends with various DC lifers probably made him overconfident. To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case. Richard Jewell is a famous example of naive talking (not even lying) being used against him - there's a Clint Eastwood releasing this weekend about his case. Regardless of which political side you prefer, these tools of circular prosecution have and will be used against anyone when anything ranging from a media frenzy, to executive pressure, to a couple ambitious agents deems it warranted.
- busymom0 7y ago
  > however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case. Not yet, they haven't abandoned the case yet. It was put on hold when Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer showed that FBI manipulated his 302 transcripts and the FBI replied that they would like to put the case on hold until the IG report is out. In General Flynn’s case, his lawyer’s latest submission (3 weeks ago) also shows that he didn’t actually lie. FBI attorney Lisa Page edited his testimony and overnight, the testimony went from one thing to something he never said. Then FBI used that manipulates testimony to make him plead guilty because he had to sell his house and he went bankrupt from his past lawyer fees. The judge will most likely throw his case out now after this IG report is out which shows gross misconduct from FBI.
  - mc32 7y ago
    What happens to FBI agents who tamper with evidence like that when they are caught?
    - busymom0 7y ago
      So far nothing has happened but we shall see. Lisa Page manipulated Flynn's transcripts. Kevin Clinesmith altered CIA's email to say "Carter Page was not a CIA source" when the opposite was true. I believe Clinesmith was referred for criminal case by the IG but I don't know if anything happened to Lisa Page.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mdorazio 7y ago

>I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing. This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty. But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible. The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

kazagistar 7y ago
Could you submit that video to the jury as reasoning for having called the lawyer?
mikhailt 7y ago
No, it isn't, it is the only sane advice you will get. We are turning into a country where your first action should always be, stay quiet and call a lawyer first. 1. Police and prosecutor will pull your records anyway, they generally look at spouse and people close to you first regardless of your innocence. 2. If this is the only evidence they have on your guilt, then you're likely to win on appeal if the jury is insane enough to find your guilt based on zero evidence.
- danenania 7y ago
  While it may be beneficial if the police decide you’re a suspect, on the other hand it would also seem to ensure that they will view you as a suspect and investigate the hell out of you. Perhaps they do this with spouses anyway, but it still seems like you’d be drawing extra suspicion. It’s a tough one. I also imagine it’s very difficult to make a decision like this when distraught. I‘m pretty sure I’d (perhaps foolishly) only be thinking about finding my spouse, not the legal implications for myself. It seems like this would be the case for the vast majority of people in that situation.
  - AcerbicZero 7y ago
    If the police are actively investigating anything that involves them speaking to you, you need a lawyer, as you're well past the point of being concerned about "drawing extra attention". I'm not saying be that guy at the DUI checkpoint screaming about being a sovereign citizen (Although I do have a fair bit of sympathy for them) but you can talk yourself into way more trouble than you're going to be able to talk yourself out of.
    - danenania 7y ago
      If I’m understanding correctly, we’re just talking about the initial call to the police when your spouse is missing. I totally agree with you if they ask to interview you after that point, but making the first call (when time may be critical) to a lawyer seems extreme. That’s not to say it’s necessarily wrong of course, but I think the average person would likely see that as strange/suspicious (including cops and jury members).
basseq 7y ago
> use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty Would that even be admissible?
- pc86 7y ago
  Phone records are used as evidence in criminal proceedings all the time.
  - basseq 7y ago
    Yes, but phone records with your lawyer strikes me as a little different than "we see you called the hitman a week before the murder!" It comes down to the "calling a lawyer constitutes guilt" argument, which seems like it would cause any judge to roll her eyes.
hutzlibu 7y ago
Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid. But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justice system, with good outcome for people who can afford good lawers and people qho cannot. When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. But it makes sense, that lawers think different about that.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  I haven't watched it in a while, so I may get some specifics wrong, but it goes through various hypotheticals, until finally getting to the point where you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, but talking to the police gets you convicted. IIRC the example was you saying "I was out of town visiting my mom when the crime happened" but they have a (mistaken) witness putting you near the scene. The fact that you (supposedly) lied about where you were combined with other circumstantial evidence may be enough to convict you. Note also that even an innocent person will almost always give contradicting accounts of a situation if interrogated for long enough. [edit] There were several such examples, including the one I remembered from 14-23 minutes.
- bsder 7y ago
  > Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent? Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police. He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You simply can't know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to narrow the scope immediately. At that point you can address the actual charges rather than letting the police fish through hours of your babbling hunting for something to hang you with. > When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?
snowron6 7y ago
A significantly shorter video with a similar message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs

i_am_proteus 7y ago

> It's my best piece of advice — and the advice most consistently ignored. If you're dealing with the government, and you are in any doubt, why won't you just shut up? https://www.popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostly-pointlessly/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/05/01/shut-up-i-explained-mostl...

greenyoda 7y ago
Note that the author of this article is a former federal prosecutor, so he's an expert on this subject.

drak0n1c 7y ago

Roger Stone as well - the only charges brought against him were for lying during interrogations. His ego and boisterous storytelling habit did him in. Being in and out of the White House over the decades and friends with various DC lifers probably made him overconfident. To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case. Richard Jewell is a famous example of naive talking (not even lying) being used against him - there's a Clint Eastwood releasing this weekend about his case. Regardless of which political side you prefer, these tools of circular prosecution have and will be used against anyone when anything ranging from a media frenzy, to executive pressure, to a couple ambitious agents deems it warranted.

busymom0 7y ago
> however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case. Not yet, they haven't abandoned the case yet. It was put on hold when Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer showed that FBI manipulated his 302 transcripts and the FBI replied that they would like to put the case on hold until the IG report is out. In General Flynn’s case, his lawyer’s latest submission (3 weeks ago) also shows that he didn’t actually lie. FBI attorney Lisa Page edited his testimony and overnight, the testimony went from one thing to something he never said. Then FBI used that manipulates testimony to make him plead guilty because he had to sell his house and he went bankrupt from his past lawyer fees. The judge will most likely throw his case out now after this IG report is out which shows gross misconduct from FBI.
- mc32 7y ago
  What happens to FBI agents who tamper with evidence like that when they are caught?
  - busymom0 7y ago
    So far nothing has happened but we shall see. Lisa Page manipulated Flynn's transcripts. Kevin Clinesmith altered CIA's email to say "Carter Page was not a CIA source" when the opposite was true. I believe Clinesmith was referred for criminal case by the IG but I don't know if anything happened to Lisa Page.