[zdoppiklonikaa]

TLDW

[BonjGopu]

Hard evidence if it's against you. That's the rule.

[Seasmillets]

Did you even bother to watch the video, Sloww? Even a cop advises the viewer to plead the 5th if they are a suspect for any crime. I watched that video a few months back, the arguments they make are well founded.

[euylvaygdq]

****ing awesome, Che. Thanks for sharing.

The part about mistaken witnesses being used to tear down a truthful alibi is pretty frightening.

It's well-known that eye witnesses aren't very reliable.

As far as watching the video, I already know that I'm going to scream "It was him" and point to Che, so I'm not worried.

[Gakeincidoniac]

OT, it's a bit scary that the american judicial system can't protect innocents better. Guess that it's the inbuild flaw in a jury system.

I did like the bit where the cop says that in countries like Italy, Spain, etc they beat the crap out of the accused. I guess the US has a few things going for it...

The system is adversarial. So the cop and the prosecutor aren't there to be your friend or help you out. It is your job, and that of your lawyer to save your hide. That's why information like this video (and the Busted videos) are soo important.

So my response is the system works fine, the main problem is there is a lack of education & information out there. The courts attempted to fix this with the Miranda warning, specifically requiring all cops to specifically inform folks of their rights. But people just don't listen or don't fully understand it. That I agree is a big problem. I have friends in other organizations working specifically to fix that problem.

Edit: I might as well shill for them. Go here, they do good work: http://www.flexyourrights.org/

[wbeachcomber]

The thread title, all by itself, is stupid. Didn't you talk to police when those mean bullies took your bicycle, Che?
Doesn't that make you, what's that word..a hypocrite? Why yes, I believe it does, again.

Man are you sad.

[nerrttrw]

The only way I can see it being a problem is if we're not talking about a police interview with a witness, but rather a police interview with a third party.

For example, going with the 7/11 robbery again. Lets say the robbery occurred on a Tuesday at 3:00, and during that time I'm in development economics. Now that is a big class in a lecture theater, and I only really know a couple people in that class. Lets say last Tuesday those two people I know were not in attendance and so I couldn't go to them to back up my story, but somebody else remembered me being in class and went to the police and said "Yeah I saw that guy in class, so he couldn't have committed that robbery." That could be a problem if it isn't revealed to me / my attorney. Since, however, I'm pretty sure (I'm not a lawyer) the police are required to reveal that stuff to my attorney prior to the trial, again it doesn't put me at a disadvantage, I would be able to call that witness to testify on my behalf.

Good explanation, overall, but bad example. Here, you'd be asking that person to testify to something he has first hand knowledge of, so hearsay doesn't really come into play. You're right that the prosecutor is required to turn that over to your attorney, but a failure along those lines doesn't really implicate what I think is troubling BC.

[Saispapedlimi]

No offense, but did you watch the video ? Accordingly to that, anything that can be evidence against you in a "interview" with the police, is considered "hard evidence", but anything in same "interview" that could be a defense argument is simply hearsay and therefore not admissible.

The one paragraph version:

You're expected to make self-serving statements. You're not expected to make self-incriminating statements. Therefore, when you do the latter, we let the jury consider it.

The semi-KH version:

No offense, but did you read and understand my response? In it, I explained the reason for the different treatments. Tard.

[cQT6nmEc]

Hi everybody!!!!

[avdddcxnelkaxz]

The semi-KH version:

No offense, but did you read and understand my response? In it, I explained the reason for the different treatments. Tard.

[MarlboroCig]

The police are tools of the kulaks. The NKVD are tools of the workers.

[mbaueee]

Depending on the community from which the jury is drawn, police testimony may have more or less weight.

[oxixernibioge]

Hope that you don't use that kind of language in the court - that will probably make your clients a bit pissed when they are put in jail.

You argue that people just can tell their part of the story at court, and that is very nice. Only problem is how the jury will weight it. Will they consider the incriminating parts (that may be innocent) from the police witness more value than the testimony from the accused that he couldn't have done it ?

No offense, but you don't have KH potential, so please don't try to act as him.

No client would go to jail for my language in court.

I don't argue anything here. I explain to you why police testimony that a defendant made a statement favorable to his cause isn't admissible. Wasn't the perceived unfairness of letting the officer testify to your harmful statements, but not your helpful ones, the root of your concern? Jury weight is an entirely different question, and as che said, not one susceptible to a single, blanket answer.

I've consciously never shown my pretentious ******* side here, but I assure you it's substantial. Besides, that was meant as a joke.

[MaugleeRobins]

It is fun, though.

[NaMbessemab]

Sorry BlackCat, but Solomwi is absolutely right. A statement that "X said something that is in X's favor" is hearsay (unless other exceptions apply) and "X said something that would hurt X" is not. That's the law. I remember when my dad was studying for the bar, a decade and something ago, he had this great study software that involved guessing if a statement was hearsay, and if not, why (what exception and/or 'not hearsay' rule applied). I got to be pretty good at it, during one summer...

[MarythePuppy6]

I was led to understand at one point, police corruption and behavior in New Orleans was so bad, that the police were presumed by juries to be lying onless backed up by evidence.

Haven't heard that specifically (that I remember), but it wouldn't surprise me. About ten years ago, I worked for a pretty big paving contractor. Obviously, every branch's biggest customer was the state it was located in. The company map showed a presence in every state from Texas east and Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia south... except Louisiana. I was told it was an intentional hole in the map, basically because of the corruption.

[zzquo0iR]

Hi everybody!!!!

Nobody should talk to me either

[JennaJJxoxoxo]

Nice going, Imran!

Hi, Timex... crap.

[Grorointeri]

That was supposed to be a joke



I have no problem with your explanation, it quite clear and explains the habit of american procedure. I simply find it strange. I have a colleague that is a jury member (our jury system is a bit different than yours) that I will ask about danish treatment of such.



Well, I have to stoop to that too sometimes, but it's rarely nessecary

@snoopy369 : I'm quite aware of the fact that Solomwi is right, I just find it strange and I'm not sure it would be allowed in a danish court.

Fair enough. Given that this all started with you being baffled at a fairly mundane aspect of our court system, I hope I can be forgiven for not recognizing the joke.

I'm interested, though, in the opposite question, if it turns out that Danish courts handle the same thing differently. I'm interested to see what you find out. As long as you're clear enough now to understand why, even if not agreeing with it, my work is done.

[janeseymore09092]

Excellent video's

I did like the bit where the cop says that in countries like Italy, Spain, etc they beat the crap out of the accused. I guess the US has a few things going for it...

[cough] Rodney King [/cough]