In America 90-95% of all cases are plead before trial. It is important to note that because the discussion is about all of the effects of talking to the cops. Not just what happens when you go to a jury trial.

i just don't understand how someone who claims to be so well read on and up to date on criminal law can think the main problem with forensic science is that it's too easy for rich people to beat it and not that forensic experts are a bunch of retards who are making **** up as they go along.

and yes i agree that csi has prob had a large negative impact on our criminal justice system

Every time you post it makes it clearer why you are failing law school. The first article includes the actual reviews. They are available by clicking on the icon next to the case. It is pretty clear you never read them and instead just took what the second article said at face value. I have explained it to you twice that if you actually go read the reviews the claims made in the second article are not supported by what the actual review says. A proper rebuttal to that would be to go look at the reviews and find some where there was actually exculpatory evidence rather than just bad documentation but instead your response is to freak out and stamp you feet and just insist that something that is plainly not the case is.

There are a few dozen examples in this topic that prove this wrong. There are situations where just shutting up and doing nothing is the best play and there are situations where talking and co-operating is the best play. It is a judgment call that any reasonably intelligent person can make.

Except this hasn't happened despite multiple interactions with the police including some that would have some fairly serious consequences. It also assumes that there is something to implicate oneself in -- most people have done nothing wrong. Consenting to a search or answering a few questions when you have done nothing wrong is very different than talking once it is clear that you are a serious suspect -- we after all talking about using discretion and good judgment. Most people are capable of doing that so a universal rule is not the best choice. A universal rules is the best choice if we are talking about guilty people who also happen to not be very bright.

I graduated and got an offer at one of the sisters. I don't work because I don't need to work.

If you look hard enough you can find an expert to say anything. The more out-there the claim the less respected the expert will be but you can find them.

To claim that the actual science is BS is a different story. So you actually don't believe DNA is real science?

there's a lot more to forensics than just dna. basically most of the other stuff they use is just complete bull**** with little to no scientific basis.

try googling "problems with forensic science" or something.

HENRYYYYYYYSEVENTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN

this thread is truly one for the ages

I still don't think you're reading the articles I posted henry. I put 8 in this thread. None of them have been good enough for you and I understand that nothing will be good enough for you. If you've gone through law school and actually talked to real life lawyers and still think cooperating is a good idea then good on you. You will never be proven wrong because the chances of you getting in trouble for something you did not do is incredibly small.

All I know is what I've seen so far. And what I have seen is that anytime a defense attorney gets a case he will breath a sigh of relief if he/she finds out that their client did not speak with the cops. They are never like, oh gee well at least he made on honest attempt to clear things up with the cops. If you want to disagree with the experts then go right ahead, you're probably going to be fine either way. But you are taking a risk.

I am aware of that but I know DNA quite well so I was hoping that would be what you had an issue with. I almost went with fingerprints but I figured that isn't really all that complicated.

A much easier option would be for you to just say what you have an issue with. Courts in most jurisdictions are ultraconservative in what they accept as evidence and way behind what science can do to avoid these type of issues. There is also the problem that is something isn't well established science the defence will put up their own experts to refute it.

No. You put in six blogs / sites with a specific ideology. Only the most recent were articles in a newspaper. The second Washington Post article was based on the items that were catalogued in the first Washington Post article. As such we have the primary sources on which the second article is based on as such we know that the claim that innocent people are in jail us false.

Of course. They will also know that the person is likely guilty. I think you are still missing the point -- no one is saying talk to the police all the time. It is about making a judgment call. A defence attorney would never see the individuals who made the right call in cooperating because they would never have been charged. In situations were talking is the correct decision no matter what you decide to do you'll not end up charged with anything. The only difference is how how long and how unpleasant the resolution will be.

The only expert I have seen so far is some loser professor teaching at last chance law school. I agree that no defence lawyer would ever advise an individual who has been charged to talk. They would also never advise an individual who is guilty and probably not that bright to talk. I guarantee you any defence lawyer not working out of a mall would advise people to cooperate in situations like crashjr, DoTheMath, and my own examples.

Meh, good talk.

Also,

lol

the problem is that prosecutors wheel in their, say, blood spatter expert, who then tells the jury exactly what the prosecutor wants them to, and the jury accepts it as fact because hey the guy is a blood spatter expert and that **** is infallible on tv!

i understand you're rich and can hire expensive defense attorneys that will bring in their own consultants to possibly refute the pseudoscience constantly spewed by so called experts in court but most people can't afford that.

One time I got pulled over, put in the back of a cop car, then asked to take a breathalizer. I did and blew 0.00 because I hadn't been drinking. Cop apologized and I went home.

ez game.

I feel like I would be much more likely to talk to Canadian Cops (I live in Toronto) than Cops in the US. I have hear so so so many stories of the US Cops abusing power, planting evidence, lie to courts, etc. I feel like there is a greater chance that you get F'ed over in the states.

I got harassed by a cop last year who was convinced I had been drinking. He basically put me into a field sobriety test (HGN) before I even knew what was going on. Had I flunked (for whatever reason - plenty of sober people do) and blew a 0%, the field sobriety test wins - DUI doesn't mean alcohol.