May 6th, 2008 06:22 PM
I did forget to mention that this card had been shown to real LEOs and lawyers. What I posted was the result after some suggested changes.
Originally Posted by 1911packer
Like you, I would not use what I read on a forum in such a critical situation without seeking professional advice of my own. I view these forums as idea generators from which I can learn.
You have a well reasoned argument and I concede the point. Thanks for making the effort.
Originally Posted by morintp
May 6th, 2008 06:29 PM
If you were unable to speak because of wounds/nerves... based on what we are talking about you can leave the card at home, not speaking is your best bet IMHO.
May 6th, 2008 07:16 PM
This is answered in the linked video, which you probably haven't been able to view yet. What you tell an officer may or may not be used against you, but it will never be used for you because of the "hear-say" rule. The hear-say rule will not allow the officer to testify in court about anything you told him you did prior to the conversation---the presumption is you are lying to make yourself look good. (Weirdly, the hear-say rules would allow him to testify about what you told him you intended to do in the future.)
Originally Posted by morintp
May 6th, 2008 08:30 PM
I watched the video, and the answer is not in there. The rule I mentioned in my post was quoted by Mitchell (post #40 on page 4) as exceptions to the hearsay rule. Not one of them mentions disregarding statements in your own self interest.
Originally Posted by Anubis
May 6th, 2008 10:31 PM
Mark J. Sullivan Criminal Defense Attorney - Palm Springs
YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE EVIDENCE YET
I always use the Mike Tyson example when I talk about this. You may remember that back in the early 1990's, Mike Tyson was accused of having raped a young woman in Indianapolis. The victim, a beauty pageant contestant, did not actually make the initial report until more than a day after the incident. She reported that Tyson had taken her to his hotel room and had raped her. She then returned to her hotel room which she shared with another contestant in the pageant. She thought about if for a day or so, and then reported it.
Obviously, by the time the police started to act on the report, there was not much physical evidence to be examined. She had already bathed, and underwear, clothing, towels and bed linens had all been laundered. It got worse for the prosecutors. They discovered a potentially devastating piece of evidence, and cleverly, they decided to subpoena Mr. Tyson himself to testify before a grand jury. Of course, as the target of the investigation, Tyson had the right to invoke his 5th Amendment rights, but like most accused criminals, Tyson was eager to clear his name.
Had I been his lawyer, I would have told him that he had the right to remain silent. Use it. Do not assist the prosecution. The only time he would tell his version of what happened would be if he was needed to testify, as the last witness for the defense. That would have been after the prosecution had divulged all of its evidence, after they had presented their case to the jury, and before they had the opportunity to hear his side of the story. By that time, they would have no time to investigate and refute his testimony.
In one of the worst cases of professional malpractice imaginable, Tyson's lawyer allowed him to testify that he had sex with the young lady, but that she had fully consented.
Tyson and his lawyer had fallen into a horrible trap. Tyson convicted himself. The problem that the prosecution had discovered early in its investigation consisted of a statement which the victim's roommate attributed to her. According to the room-mate, as soon as the victim returned to her hotel room on the night of the incident, she exclaimed, "That son of a ***** tried to rape me!" Now, why the victim said "tried" is unknown. Maybe the complaining witness mistakenly inserted the word in the excitement of the moment, or as a result of all the trauma she had suffered. Or maybe she didn't even say it. Maybe the roommate heard it wrong. Nevertheless, when the prosecutor saw that statement, he knew that any capable criminal defense lawyer could have won the case without even calling one witness. He could hear the defense's closing argument vividly.
I'm posting this from Mark J. Sullivan's article which is linked above. His example, not mine, but it answers the question above.
May 7th, 2008 01:38 AM
Yep. Good advice, don't talk to the cops.
I like Massad Ayoob's advice on how to deal with interaction with the police if you are ever involved in a self defense shooting.
"That man attacked me. I was in fear for my life. The evidence is there and there Officer. You know what an emotional experience I have just been through, I do not wish to make a statement of any kind until I have consulted with my attorney."
That is what I will say if I ever have to shoot in defense of myself or my loved ones.
May 7th, 2008 11:25 AM
Here's another link to that lecture from Regent: School of Law.
ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
May 7th, 2008 11:52 AM
Wow. It got so much attention it's on iTunes now. Download and watch it on your iPhone!! sweet!
May 7th, 2008 02:58 PM
People usually don't make helpful statements, so it usually is not an issue.
Originally Posted by morintp
Rule 803 would allow you to introduce the helpful statements (if any), but it would be the defense who offers them, not the prosecution.
I mentioned 803's statements would come in either way:
"803's primary points applicable to a use of force incident are:
(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.
(2) Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
(3) Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.
So, when you say "Officer! I just...the gun...it just went off...I didn't mean to kill him..." in the immediate aftermath of a situation, the statement is in.
True or not. Like it or not. Helpful or not. Regardless of your availability to testify at trial or the hearing."
The prosecution is going to put on its case, not yours.
If you disagree with their take on matters, dispute it on cross examination of a witness or in the defense portion of the trial.
May 7th, 2008 04:03 PM
Thanks Mitchell, that makes more sense to me. It seemed very one sided before.
June 27th, 2008 12:14 PM
DONT talk to the cops- great video
YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
make sure to watch parts one and two
Wo die Notwehr aufhört, fängt der Mord an
(Murder begins where self-defense ends)
By Siafu in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: January 9th, 2010, 12:52 PM
By GoldenSaber in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: August 6th, 2009, 08:25 PM
By mzmtg in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: February 18th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Search tags for this page
concealed carry excited utterance prepared statement
humorus sage advice
never talk to the police
police dispatcher interview questions & forum
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors