This is harder to piece together.

2009 annual report says they got 3070 requests for help. Of these they took 270 cases. Elsewhere they say they secured 27 exonerations that same year.

the correct response is 'officer, i don't talk to ****bags, am i free to go?"

I love how nerds on the internet like to talk ****. Guaranteed if you got pulled over you'd be and nice compliant.

k henry, go gamble with your life because you thought you knew the law better than the harvard law grad who has years of criminal defense experience and is a law professor. oh, but he's not a professor at harvard, therefore you should gamble with your life.

jackson said any lawyer worth his salt would tell his client not to talk to the police under any circumstances.

i can't have page long debates with you, sorry. the video presented possible situations where innocent people might incriminate themselves, 25% of exonerations from DNA were for people who incriminated themselves.

take this data, do what you will, no one actually cares if you listen to it or not, it'll like 99% never apply to either of us anyways.

Going to Harvard is a nice start to a career but once you end up teaching at last chance university your life is pretty lol and no you shouldn't be taken seriously when you make a desperate attempt at gaining fame by making YouTube videos.

Why do you have to get back to having FlyWf making you look like a moron?

Simply put you said that I was wrong and that Duane gives an example of an innocent person incriminating himself. I asked you for that example and you have failed to provide it. Instead you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what was said in the video. I wasn't even paying attention and I absorbed more of it. By now you have listened to the entire thing again and realized I was right so you plan to **** off -- don't let the door hit you on the way out.

+1

As I said above, if I heard of a lawyer advising his clients to speak to police, I would hope he'd be struck off. I'd immediately suspect corruption, and would know that he's not complying with his duty to act in the best interest of his/her clients.

Henry is exactly the sort of person the Professor and cop refer to as being dumb, as he believes he is smarter than all the police and lawyers, and is the type of guy who could get himself in serious doo doo.

Henry...you sound jealous. He doesn't make youtube videos, he gave a lecture that was video recorded and made it to youtube.

As I said above, you're exactly the sort of dumb person the professor and cop refer to. Thinking you are smarter than the combined wisdom of experienced defence lawyers, judicial officers and the cops. LOL. That speaks for itself as to how clever you really are.

Henry, i assumed the reason everyone laughs at you here is because you are out of touch (eg, "your a professor but not at harvard so lol @ your life"), but apparently it's because you're a giant ****face douche?

so let's look at it again - criminal attorney says he's innocent, talks with police, they claim he said something to them which is incriminating, he say's he never said that. that's an example of someone being convicted, who was presumed innocent but talking to the police led to that conviction. now here comes henry17 with ****ing circular logic and goes "umm he wasn't innocent! he was convicted!" That's the whole point you ****ing backwards ape.

k so that's not good enough because your underdeveloped ****ing caveman like brain can't understand it. so i explain, henry, in 25% of DNA exoneration cases the defendant was innocent, proven by DNA, but said something which incriminated himself.

that's not good enough either, because you just say "well those 25% of people clearly weren't very smart" that's again, the whole point you ****tard, no one is smart enough where it makes sense to risk your life by talking to the police. take you, for example, who can't even watch a youtube video of a lecture which was presented to college kids and understand it, yet you're like 'oh no i'm totally smarter than Justice Jackson and everyone else!!" that's what all the morons like you do, that's what the criminal defense attorney did in the example, they go "i'm smart, i can talk to these guys, they're just cops" and yeah, they are just cops and they're by default idiots, but you are way way dumber henry, you are the dumbest mother****er that knows how to use the internet. not only are you dumber, but you still don't understand that these cops, as stupid as they are, have one goal in mind - to get you to say something which is incriminating.

you remind me of kramer in that episode where he's like "i bet you i'll build these levels" and seinfeld goes "no you won't" and then later he's like "meh i don't want to do that anymore, bets off". you're demonstrating the logical capabilities of a ****ing sitcom character.

Confessed. In twenty-five percent of the exoneration cased they had confessed to the crime.

Why do you keep conflating that with "said something incriminating"?

maybe innocenceproject is lying but you're definitely taking that one word out of the rest of the context.

Ummmm...you don't think confessing is incriminating? WTH

No, I'm not. You keep relying on this 25% figure about "saying something incriminating" -- either the guy in the video misstated the facts, or you are. The source for this is statistic is Innocence Project, and their description is very easy to understand -- the incriminating "something" that was said was a ****ing confession, so stop implying that you shouldn't talk to cops because you might say something incriminating, because it's the same thing as confessing, and that's the last time you'll see sunlight, despite the fact that 1 in 50,000 people in prison today falsely confessed to the crime, and without even counting all those who "said something incriminating" and were never charged or were eventually acquitted.

You're making it seem like talking to a cop, for any reason, presents a real threat to your freedom because guaranteed you're going to say something to land yourself in prison. It isn't true.


In other news, in 75% of cases witness misidentification of the suspect played a role.

EVERYBODY! NEVER BE LOOKED AT BY ANYONE!

Henry isn't worth it....he doesn't understand basic things, and doesn't matter how many educated people tell him otherwise and try to simply explain it to him, he doesn't get it.

In my 17 years of practise as a defence lawyer, I've had lots of dumb clients, but never one dumb enough to ignore my advice not to talk. Henry would be that one that was dumb enough. Totally not worth wasting any more time on.

What a lawyer tells his clients is not always the best course of action for the client. Facing a civil liability issue your lawyers will advise you to never take responsibility yet case studies on recent crises shows that the opposite is the correct course of action. Likewise, if you ask me for tax advice as a lawyer I will give you very different advise then if you ask me for tax advice as a loved one. I am fully aware of what is the correct legal answer and in many cases it is not the same as the most advantageous course of action.

I actually don't disagree that a defence lawyer will always tell a client to stop cooperating until they arrive. I guarantee you no defence lawyer will have a universal rule against cooperating once they are present.

Further, that a defence lawyer advises this does not mean it is the best course of action. By the time someone is calling a lawyer the situation has become serious which doesn't account for the countless interactions between police and individuals that never reach that point. Further, the defence lawyer's advice is to a degree self-interested in that if he advises his client to talk without his presence it opens him up to liability while if he tells him not to talk the lawyer is protected. Further, since it is very rare that the police would have a suspect that is not involved the lawyer's advice is always gong to be based on an assumption of involvement and that the individual is also likely not very bright.

Yet I have managed to avoid having a criminal record yet had I followed the video's advice the opposite would certainly be true. That in and of itself is proof that Duane's claims are wrong.

You think they're the same? Good to know.

You didn't answer as to whether or not you believed a confession was incriminating?

NO WAY IT'S NOT LIKE I JUST SAID THAT WAS THE SOURCE IN THE QUOTE YOU'RE RESPONDING TO

No - no it wasn't. The quote, exactly from IP's website, which I just posted, but am doing so again in the hopes that you might read it slowly this time so you can understand it:

In 25% of them the defendants did one of 3 things, bolded above. The last two are encompassed by the first, but nevertheless, it's clear IP is saying they made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty. So yes, innocent people make incriminating statements which get them convicted, and this only happens because they didn't exercise their 5th Amendment rights. And these are only the ones we know about fwiw, where they've been exonerated by DNA evidence - there are surely more.

Being a professor at a joke school is not respected by anyone.

No. I'm sorry your little brain can't understand this but my position is that Duane's claim that the lawyer was convicted because the police officer misheard is ******ed and impossible. People do not mishear I choked her but it was a joke -- the lawyer either said it and then regretted saying it or the police officer is intentionally lying. If the first then he is guilty if the second then speaking or not speaking to the police officer would have made no difference.

This has been address multiple times and you are wrong. Sorry. If you need to know why just scroll up.

lol mad much?

I never said I was smarter than Justice Jackson. As I have explained but you seem unable to understand the quote by Justice Jackson is being misapplied. He never actually supports Duane's position. As for being smarter than Duane I don't think that is much of a claim.

I'm 100% certain I have had considerably more dealings with the police than you have.

We are talking about criminal matters, not civil ones. Police don't generally investigate civil disputes.

Your "guarantee" means nothing...you have zero experience in the profession...I have 17 years of it, and every other experienced defence lawyer will laugh at your guarantee.

Lawyers don't say "don't co-operate til i get there"....they say "don't talk under any circumstances", with the exception of indemnities or some other formal deal being in place. It is not "self interested" advice, it is advice in the best interest of the client. If it was "self interested", it would be "wait til i get there and can bill you $400/hour, then talk all you want".

As for clients being dumb, it doesn't necessarily mean dumb generally, but most are dumb when it comes to police processes and how the criminal justice system works, and you are a perfect example of that. You dispute everything the experts say, though you have no expertise yourself. That's as dumb as they come, imo. As I said above, I've never had a client dumb enough to not follow my advice re not talking.

Argh...another person who doesn't understand basic logic? Did I ask if they were the same?...NO. I asked whether you thought a confession was incriminating, a question you clearly will do anything to avoid answering.

Are you ******ed?

"Saying something incriminating" does not imply "confessing," even if confessions are incriminating. I know that you know this. Don't be stupid just to make some kind of point. None of Tsao's or the video's examples are of confessions -- they are examples of incriminating statements. Then Tsao says that 25% of DNA exoneration cases involved "incriminating statements" to imply that saying something sort of incriminating will be of the same consequence than had you confessed, which is false. To refute this Tsao has accused the Innocence Project of lying, despite the fact that this is their data being discussed.

Tsao (and I guess now you) keep trying to make a an item within a category stand in for the category itself to make talking to cops sounds more dangerous for innocent people, and it's ridiculous.

God, it's so awesome that you think you've hit on a devastating line of questioning and can only pursue it if you ignore the fact that my entire point is that there's a distinction, which one must pretend doesn't exist if one is to keep beating this 25% horse.

the fact that you have more dealings with them but still can't understand them as well as me is just more evidence of you having the intelligence of a ******ed pebble. the fact that you can't understand simple sentences and think there's some secret meaning behind justice jackson saying 'any lawyer worth his salt would tell his client to never talk to the police etc' is more evidence of you being an absolute moron. that there is another SCOTUS case which goes on about how the 5th amendment is most important to innocent people, but you aren't aware because you're too much of a braindead bag of dicks (even though it was explained nice and slow in that video), further demonstrates why you should stop posting itt. you are too stupid to understand that by never speaking to the police they'd have to misremember, or lie about an entire interview taking place, which gives the defendant a distinct advantage in case of a trial.

seriously henry it's like talking to a ****ing child. no one takes anything you say on here seriously, i'm going to start doing the same because you can't be this stupid. it's just not possible.