I just saw you're a defence attorney. So how many of your clients have gotten the chair?

I think you missed the point. Let me try again -- you are hanging you hat on the claim that all defence lawyers will give this advice-- something I myself do not deny. That is true in many fields of law. Legal advice is not always the best course of action because lawyers are limited both by the ethics body of the profession, their own liability, and their imperfect information with respect to both the situation and the client.

Does your card have your picture on it?

Well to claim I have no experience is not quite right. I do have a law degree and although I specialized in IP I took a lot of criminal law and I have some criminal law experience. More importantly and a point you failed to address is that if I was your client and I had followed you'd advice I would have a criminal record now and yet by following my advice I don't.

henry you aren't even out of ****ing high school yet, shut up.

Finally, you answered! You agree a confession is incriminating. Wasn't that hard to swallow your pride like that, was it?

LOL...you're the ridiculous one. Like Henry, you think your smarter than the experienced defence lawyers, judges and cops.

If you think that with my 17 years experience as a criminal defence lawyer, I'm going to take legal advice from you, you are the idiot.

Best of luck with your future mate. I'm finished with bothering with you.

So you conveniently think your extremely limited experience is of some value, but think that people like me who have dealt with cops pretty much everyday for more than 16 years is not? And that the experienced defence attorney who also has many thousand times more experience than you is not? LOL.

Have you ever recommended that a client make exculpatory evidence (credit card bill, witnesses placing him away from the crime etc) available to the police? Everybody agrees that there exist situations where you should not say anything to the police....but the claim being made is far stricter than that.

I have explain the context of that statement. You can call me a moron as much as is necessary to make yourself feel better but you are wrong on what Jackson meant with that and it was not advice that people should not speak to the police. Maybe you can get phoenixs1 to explain Watts vs Indiana to you in small words so that you'll understand the context.

Being smarted than defence lawyers doesn't require much. No one goes into law to be a defence lawyer.

We don't have the chair here. And if we did, the answer would be none. I've won all but one murder case I've done (silly client who talked too much), and win most of my cases.

lol i know we're on the same page but i don't really believe phoenix is a lawyer

he's definitely not as stupid as henry17 though. then again, no one really is.

I actually think your experience works against you here. You deal with criminals and lowlifes so your world view is shaped by that. The people you encounter shouldn't be talking to the police.

I highly doubt you have a law degree, but assuming I'm incorrect, all I can say is that it's a blessing you aren't practising. I have no idea what you're talking about, but it sounds like a guy saying that because he escaped death in a car accident because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, people shouldn't be advised to wear seatbelts. And I have no idea what your "experience" is, but from what I've read, you've had encounters with police in your capacity as an individual, not a professional capacity, and those were limited to about 5. I often have far more than 5 in a single day.

phoenixs1,

I do have a law degree and unlike General Tsao I do believe you are lawyer. The fact that I was able to pick out that you have your picture on you card by the way you discuss law tells me everything I need to know.

lollllllllllllllllllllllll

Max, in Australia, and in many countries, there is no general duty of disclosure on behalf of the Accused (with the exception we now have here regarding being required to give notice of an alibi).

Exculpatory evidence is presented at Trial, and not in advance to the Police. l obtain statements from Witnesses, but keep those on my file. If you show the Police/Prosecuting authorities the holes in their case prior to Trial, chances are they will just bend over backwards to try to plug those holes.

On occasion, we will do written submissions to the Prosecutors in advance of Trial in an attempt to have the charges discontinued, but a smart lawyer is careful what he discloses in those submissions, as they are rarely successful and could cause damage to your client's case at Trial.

You didn't really not get Poker Reference's point did you?

Ummmm....in case it wasn't obvious, I agree with General Tsao. Jackson made it blatantly obvious that a good lawyer advises his clients not to speak to police.

Pheonix: Do you still misunderstand the argument?

The argument being made is that you shouldn't ever talk to cops because if you do, there is a very real chance you're going to say something incriminating. (We're ignoring how the fact that the cops are talking to you might be influenced by whether you have something to incriminate yourself over). To support this argument it was stated and repeated that in 25% of DNA exoneration cases the accused had "said something incriminating," which makes talking to cops sound very risky indeed.

MY counter-argument, which you keep pretending I haven't made in every single post, complete with links and statistics, is that the incriminating "something" in these cases was confessing to the crime, which we wouldn't lump in with saying "I didn't shoot him." That it was lumped in, that it necessarily must be lumped in for this 25% figure to have any legitimate place in this discussion, is my issue.

The counter-counter argument from Tsao was that the source of this figure is lying about it, like despite what the Innocence Project says about their work you and Tsao just have a gut feeling that IP really means "something incriminating" when they say "confession" because you want to keep using their number regardless of whether it represents what you want it to.


No one is saying that if it's gotten to the point where our hypothetical person of interest has hired an attorney, or if he's actually guilty, that he should keep talking.

POTY

Listen, if either of you two need an experienced investigator to analyze the police investigation for a client looking for holes, let me know.

I provide that.

I thought it was just me.

This is ******ed and just wrong. If you have exculpatory evidence you can probably avoid a trial completely.

I can't speak for Australia but this not at all true here.

LOL! Almost every person who studies law has dreams of becoming a defence lawyer thanks to tv and the movies. It's not nearly as glamorous as it's made out to be and many later regret their decision as their counterparts doing civil work start to make much more money than they do. You think lawyers don't dream of getting their faces on tv? No better way than by doing defence law.

Again, if you would refuse the advice of a good defence lawyer, and think you know better because you've had a few experences with police, you're a fool.

LOL. You missed mine. If you think an experienced criminal defence lawyer was going to let someone avoid answering a direct question, as he was obviously attempting to do, you're more than a bit naive.

I didn't say anyone was lying you stupid ****, stop putting words in my mouth ****bag. I quoted directly from IP's website you ****ing empty-headed bottle of **** juice and it clearly included "incriminating statements" along with confessed/plead guilty. I've explained this to you thrice, but you are such a spasming **** muscle that you keep claiming I'm calling IP liars or something.

I'm more than happy for a mod to confirm it, with the rider of course that I am not providing legal advice here. Feel free to contact a mod with a view to having them confirm it.