Their lawyer ldo

according to that defense attorney/law school professor, 100% of people are too stupid too evaluate the situation properly. this is because they don't have all the information that the police have.

Including lawyers? Let's just all get our vocal cords removed....ability to talk is just a negative free roll!!!!

yep, he said if you are a lawyer you should never let your client talk to the police as all it can do is hurt him at court and cannot ever help him at court.

lol. def not calling the cops thats for sure.

It is very rare that someone with absolutely no involvement is being questioned by the police and as a group criminals are not very bright. The never talk advice is rooted in the fact that both those conditions are almost always true. That doesn't change the fact that there are times where it is clearly advantageous to cooperate.

With respect to the imperfect information that cuts both ways. There is also a lot of information that you know that the police does not. In some cases you can save a lot of aggravation by lowering the amount of imperfect information going around. Someone who has zero involvement will almost always be better off cooperating at least at first. People who are caught dead to rights for less serious criminal stuff / highway traffic stuff are better off cooperating. People who have some involvement but are also involved in other much more serious crimes are better off cooperating if cooperating lowers the risk that the other more serious crimes are not discovered.

These are two different debates. Don't talk to the cops because it will make you a rat is different than don't talk to the cops because it will get you convicted of something.

henry i disagree with post 56.

anyways, i would have liked to see the Q&A section that was cut off from that tape because one thing I'd like to ask that professor is what to do in the event that someone you know is a victim and you have information that can help the police. i'd be surprised if no one asked him about that in the Q&A.

I haven't watched the video....but that can't be right. You are being questioned about a murder so you being in a lawyer. You tell him that you weren't involved in the murder and you have an air tight verifiable alibi....he tells you to say nothing? Avoiding a multi day jail holding, paying bail and being tried for murder seems to make talking to the cops in that spot ridiculously +EV....even if what you say can never help you in court (which I think is false in and of itself but that's a separate issue)

umm that's what he says in the video, if that's what you were questioning. i am not a lawyer. the reasons are explained in the video. it's an entertaining watch.

Wait....do you really care what he says here?

no max, i don't care to hear the advice of a highly experienced criminal defense attorney regarding discussing criminal events with the police.

That is one law professor who so far has not impressed me -- his logic is horrible and he has stated things that I know for fact are incorrect.

I took a lot of criminal law and (with the exception of one) all my professors were defence lawyers including one that would go on to be AG and none of them would hold this position. At the most they would argue that you should not talk to the police without having your lawyer present which is a much weaker claim that what the video is making which is never speak to the police.

k until your super famous canadian lawyer makes a video that goes on the internet (thus giving it instant credibility!) i'll stick with that professor, Justice Jackson and the Supreme Court of the United States, and never talk to the cops.

Frankly, I'm shocked that the advice of a lawyer would be to never talk to the cops without a lawyer.

It's just as extreme/stupid to say "never talk to the cops" as it is to say "always cooperate with the cops if you've got nothing to hide".

Obviously this is so situational that without knowing the specifics of each case it's nearly impossible to give any type of one size fits all advice. In general, though, I think responding when you aren't the target of the questions OR when what you are being questioned about is extremely minor (a traffic stop when you know the only thing you are guilty of is speeding or failure to stop or something like that) is probably +EV. The more serious the offense being investigated, the more likely you should be to have a lawyer, whether you are guilty or not, just to protect your rights.

It was a military situation, but I absolutely requested to speak with JAG when my CO tried to charge me with a crime (intentionally defrauding the US government with my eye surgery) that I hadn't committed. I also freely answered questions until that right was invoked, but once they tried to get me to sign anything or make an official statement, I refused and stood my ground.

I think most people with a normal level of common sense will be able to tell when it's okay to talk and when they should shut up IF they are knowledgable about their rights in the first place. That last caveat is why a lot of "never talk to the cops" stuff gets started - so many Americans are ridiculously ignorant of their rights and obligations when it comes to criminal investigations.

Professor James Duane Biography [regent.edu]

this wasn't his advice.

it was, paraphrasing SCOTUS Justice Jackson,

"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell his client to never talk to the police under any circumstances."

Is this a joke? You really think making a video and putting it on the internet helps someone's credibility?

This individual actually has an impressive CV but as a general rule making videos and putting them on the internet is usually a sign of being a nutcase.

that part was a joke...yes. the part about me ignoring your canadian horse police law in favor of justice jackson and the supreme court was not a joke.

Iirc, that was just a typical room full of morons. Even the cop who was supposed to argue counterpoint seemed to miss that idea.

I'm just pointing out that you have to bear in mind that lawyers have an objective as well (getting hired/having their services utilized).

Not all lawyers give advice that's in the best interest of their clients (as opposed to advice that's in their own best interest), just like not all cops are above abusing their power or the law. There are good and bad eggs in both fields.

With a good cop you're less likely to need a lawyer for minimal issues (assuming you aren't guilty). With a bad cop you may need a lawyer from the get-go. Unfortunately, they don't put a little button on their uniforms so you know in advance which one you are dealing with.

you were saying that as a lawyer he may be trying to make sure he is always present for $$. i am saying that he did not say 'don't talk to the police without a lawyer' (which would give your suggestion some weight) he said never let your client talk to the police ever. this has nothing to do with getting more billable hours. in other words, you made up the statement 'don't talk to the police without me present' to prove your comment about him wanting to make money - in actuality, he never said those words.

I am fairly certain that he is misquoting the judge. Jackson most likely meant do not talk to the police without your lawyer present. There is absolutely no one who has finished law school who would hold it as a universal that you should never cooperate with the police under any circumstances.

Further, if you listen to the video there is an underlying assumption that the individual is guilty or mentally feeble in which case yes the advice is sound. For someone who is not guilty and not stupid then cooperating at first is +EV.

Lolz...this view is all the more flabbergasting coming from you. Just replace criminal defense with economics and this youtube dude with paul krugman and I imagine you'd be singing a different tune.

It's pretty obvious that this lawyer and the random quotes you've found back up your pre conceived political views so you want to blindly follow them even if their views are unjustifiable based on logic.

Henry,

No, that assumption is not in the video.

No, he's not misquoting.