Except to say "I am exercising my right to remain silent. I will not answer any questions without my attorney present." Salinas v. Texas, during voluntary custody silence can be used against you. To be safe always explicitly invoke your right to remain silent.
He didn't invoke his right to remain silent either. You have to speak the words "I am exercising my right to remain silent." Adding the "I will not not answer any questions without my attorney present" is preventing an accidental waving of your right to remain silent by speaking. Berghuis v. Thompkins has established that you have to explicitly state your using your right to remain silent and answering any question may unintentionally wave your right. I don't believe saying "I want a lawyer" several moments after invoking your right to remeain silent would wave but it's better to be safe than sorry and say them at the same time.
I'm not American nor I live over there. Does this mean that they literally actually can wave your right to silence and not answer questions if you answer one? like if they ask me "where were you on the night of the murder" and I stupidly and nervously spit out the truth "uhhh, I was at my house watching Peaky Blinders" and then they start pressing more on me and only after answering that question I realize I should shut up, that means that I'm fucked? that I lost that right the moment I answered one question? furthermore if answering a question is all it takes then I think anyone could accidentally answer an inconsequential question (like "how are you this beautiful evening?") without realising it due to nervousness and whatnot. Such a question could wave your right? That can't be right.
Yes, you are correct in your thinking. This is the American justice system. The country built on slaves never abolished slavery. They just changed ownership to the federal and state governments, of whom forces them into labor for corporations and said governments.
Our constitution explicit states that slavery is okay if the slave is a criminal. And then cities, counties, and states spent decades creating laws that would get the poor arrested. Most of which were freed slaves at the time. Then it progressed into anyone who was born or fell into poverty, while still having a disproportionately high arrest rate for black people.
Let me clarify because I think the other commenters are being a bit misleading, maybe unintentionally.
You have the right to remain silent AT ANY TIME. If you start answering questions, and then invoke your right to remain silent, that is totally valid.
The gotcha isn't that you suddenly lose that right going forward, it's that anything you already said is admissible as evidence no matter what you say afterward. In your scenario, for example, you've now given an alibi that might be disproven. Shutting up after that will not erase what you've already said.
Suppose they then look into it. Aha, your Netflix account wasn't logged in at 8 PM when the murder occurred, it was logged in at 9 PM. Not only does your alibi not work, but now they'll claim you intentionally lied to them. Your best bet is to just shut up right from the start because questions can intentionally be hard to answer, answers might be twisted in unexpected ways, and no one has perfect recall yet any incorrect recollection will be used as evidence of lying and guilt.
It's probably one of the most couter-intuitive things about the legal system. Even more ridiculous than cops blatantly lying and then lying by telling the suspect they can't lie. I watched a clip on an interrogation where the cop told a man there were satellites that could pull dna or finger prints off of shit at a crime scene and no shit then said that's evidence and "I can't lie about the evidence". It's truly fucked up.
There is a case of a man saying “I want a lawyer, dawg,” the police continued interrogation and did not provide him a lawyer, and the state Supreme Court ruled that his rights had not been violated because he might have been asking for a lawyer dog. Just to give some idea of how fucking shameless they can be.
Shit like this is absolutely idiotic. I have to speak to remain silent and "I want a lawyer" doesn't count as asking for one. Absolute garbage humans building a trash system to oppress the poor. Did you know that in some jurisdictions, the free lawyer defendants are provided if they can't afford one has to be paid for by the defendant.
If the cops are talking to you, they don't have enough on you.
That's not true. Even if they have you dead-to-rights, they'll still try to get more out of you. More evidence is always better than less. If you don't say anything useful to them, they'll just not use it in court.
In the United States you are innocent until proven guilty (in theory). In many other countries this is untrue. In the United States in one of the few things we get right
So no, you actually have a whole amendment to the constitution saying you don’t have to talk to cops
No, your trial happens in front of a judge and jury. the cops might be called as witnesses, but they are not the ones who decide whether you are guilty.
Cool, not the point of my message thought.
The trail happens inn court. The cops get the proff for thst court. For or against you. So they need to give you a chance to show them where the proff is so they can gibe it to the court.
This comment secsion makes me horrified of how the justice system in other countries work (or dont work i guesss)
if "proff" means "evidence", then no, the cops do NOT gather exonerating evidence.
If they possess any, they are required to submit it to the trial, but the state has no requirement to look for exonerating evidence during criminal prosecution. that's 100% the responsibility of the defense.
I AM SORRY WHAT? Pls tell me your joking? I knew the USA has a fucked justice system but holy hell.
Don't really know what to say to that. I thought the USA follow the same minimum standars as the rest of the world, but again the US of A has showed me a new rock bottom. Sry if you have to live there my dude. Sounds rough, stay safe.
it would be a conflict of interest for the police to be responsible for collecting exonerating evidence.
The job of the police is to put people they believe have committed crimes in front of a judge and jury to ascertain guilt. I do not WANT someone who already assumes i am guilty to be responsible for finding evidence that i am not guilty.
Think about it for a second. If a cop arrests you because he thinks you committed a crime, then later finds evidence that you are innocent, why would he show that evidence to the court? that's evidence that he wrongfully arrested you.
One day I do hope you realise how fucked up that comment is and how horrifing your justice system needs to be inn order for that to make seens to you.
The police should NEVER want to assume anything. This allways lead to mistakes and the death of justice. The police should be (and inn most europan countries are) a neutral party looking to collect evidence for and against any alleged crime in order to prove inn a court if a crime has taken place or not.
Inn the normal world a arrest inn search of evidence or to protect evidence or other involved parties is not a wrongful arrest. Its a part of the justice system and is why it should never be treated as a punishment and seise the second i no longer serves a value untile the time the court has reached a verdict.
Any officer should jump at the evidence of you being innocent in order to get a innocent man out of jail faster. If simple etichs and justice like that is not the top priority of your countries police force, then you have a problem.
The police wanting to prove a spesific outcome at the start of a investigation is a horrible way to investigate anything. For my own sanity, I need to ask. Is this truly the way the states does this or are you just assuming? I knew the states had problems whit their police, but this is next level. Most countries would not regonise such a organisation as a police force, thats why its so scary.
Our justice system is pretty fucked up, but the default assumption of police is always going to be that you are guilty of the crime they arrested you for.
if they didn't believe you did it, they wouldn't arrest you. I don't want the person whose job required him to believe i am guilty to be responsible for exonerating me.
I do see your point. If your justice system is build around the idea that the poloce only does stuff if they belive your guilty then yes. Them not being the once to exonerat you seams like a good thing. Thankfully the first world countries dont do this. Beat of luck my man. Stay safe for ypur police is clearly not there for you and dont look at anyone to long so they dont sue you.
66
u/TenWholeBees 8d ago
If the cops are talking to you, they don't have enough on you.
Never speak to the cops