quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I'm talking about principles, not about a one-sided retelling of one particular case. Let me ask you a yes or no question. Let's keep it simple.

Should police be allowed truthfully to testify in criminal trials concerning their observations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 I'm genuinely surprised at the difference between America and /britain if that's the case Luci. Here when you are cautioned it is explicit that what you say MAY be given in evidence and that anything you rely on in court [i.e. an explanation] may be harmed if you do not mention it when questioned by police [i.e. an inference of guilt could be made by a jury]. Over here refusing to speak to the police if you're innocent is a disastrous course action though it's occasionaly promulgated by people such as the Freemen on the Land. The only people i'd ''recommend'' holding their tongue are those so guilty they need time to construct a defence.
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

You have cited not a case, but a law firms opinion of a case. The case about which they opine is a civil matter in federal court and as such has little or no bearing to this discussion.

Further, even then, the opinion referenced said:

Supreme Court clarified that holding and explained that an adverse inference may not be drawn from silence alone, and must be considered as one of several factors. Se

The admissibility of police testimony in state court in criminal cases remains, evidently, a matter for the ststes.


Do you read these things before you post them?

quote:

1. It is widely recognized that an adverse inference may
be drawn against a person who has asserted the
privilege in civil and administrative cases. See Baxter
v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) (holding that
respondent’s Fifth Amendment rights were not
violated where he was advised that he was not
required to testify, but that his silence could be held
against him)i

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 Fair enough Satyr but i'd have thought the flip side of that, particuarly for very wealthy suspects, is that they can simply stay silent, delay court for as long as possible and hope that witnesses fade away literally and simply in quality and then when they take the stand prsent a concocted story once they've had huge amounts of time to craft and prepare one...with no penalties for doing so. I appreciate that it seems to differ from state to state but that seems a flaw. Then again if the Miranda is slightly different to our caution then maybe they balance out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 I'm genuinely surprised at the difference between America and /britain if that's the case Luci. Here when you are cautioned it is explicit that what you say MAY be given in evidence and that anything you rely on in court [i.e. an explanation] may be harmed if you do not mention it when questioned by police [i.e. an inference of guilt could be made by a jury]. Over here refusing to speak to the police if you're innocent is a disastrous course action though it's occasionaly promulgated by people such as the Freemen on the Land. The only people i'd ''recommend'' holding their tongue are those so guilty they need time to construct a defence.
 

Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for cops, here, to "help cases along". I've heard some cops refer to their appearances in court as "testalying".

To be fair, also, it's kind of "natural" behavior for investigators not trained in scientific method to get focused on an idea and to try to fit evidence into their theory. Add in the fact that cops and prosecutors advance their career based on arrest/conviction ratios and you get a real fucking judicial nightmare.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wendel27

 The Caution here Satyr is ''YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING BUT IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU FAIL TO MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT. ANYTHING YOU DO SAY MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE''.  That caution is given when an officer wants to ask a person in depth questions about a crime [if they are a suspect]. It is also given on arrest [if practicable that can be disregarded until an officer has got complete control]. It will then be given again when you go for interview with your legal counsel [if you want them].

All it means is that the police cannot force you to speak. However equally if you have a reasonable explanation but choose not to divulge it until court then the judge can direct the jury to consider why you kept silent in the first place. You may have a decent reason for that...but it would have to be good it negative inferences weren't to be drawn i.e. you've just used the time between arrest and court to make up a story.  The may be given in evidence bit works both ways. Lots of what people say after caution is irrelevant to the crime they are suspected of. But if they say things that demonstrate guilt or innocence then those can be used [by the prosecution or defence]. The defence have full access to any statements made, the aresting officer's pocket notebook and the interview tapes. Likewise if you're clearly innocent because of something you've said but you wouldn't want it to come out i.e. you were having an affair and that gave you an alibi you have to be warned that saying that will end up in court. The rule of thumb is if it has a bearing on the case [whether innocnet or guilty] it'll end up in court.


  Clamming up till the lawyer gets there is fine [though it means you'll probably be arrested so you can be interviewed] it's when the clamming up continues during interview that you'll encounter problems as that silence casts you in a very poor light at court.