k i believe you now but you're an austrialian lawyer so we'll contact you if we need to talk about a kangaroo court

i love henry's positions itt

"no lawyer would say what the video says, you're misunderstanding it"
"ok i watched the video, still, he's just saying that to get youtube hits"
"justice jackson must be talking about something else, no non-youtube lawyer would ever say that"
"he IS talking about something else, just ask phoenix, a real defense lawyer whose saying exactly what the video is saying, despite the fact that i said no lawyer would ever say that"
phoenix: "jackson absolutely is saying what GeneralTsao said"
henry: "well, every defense attorney might give that advice but it's just because they don't want to be sued for being a bad lawyer that's all it is."
"i have so much more experience with cops than you...true, all defense lawyers have way more experience than me but they are biased because they are defense lawyers trying to make sure their clients aren't found guilty, and yes, that was the entire point of the video but nevertheless i'm still way smarter so listen to me"

I can assure you not all my clients are criminals and lowlifes, though of course some might be considered that. I've represented more than one innocent person, and many that are good people that made stupid mistakes. And I've encountered a very large range of personalities in police officers over the years...some are honest and hardworking, some dishonest, some smart, some stupid, some corrupt, some are even now doing time themselves.

Not sure what you mean by the picture comment, but all our cards have pics on them, as we require them as id to gain entry to jails.

That isn't the point that is in debate. The quote is used in a way to imply that Justice Jackson was advocating for this position which he was not. The statement was part of a FPT reasoning on the admissibility of a confession. It was a descriptive statement not prescriptive -- the Justice was not actually advocating for this position in the way Duane implies.

No, not your Bar ID, your business card.

No I got the macho bit. Was just looking for confirmation that you didn't actually fail to grasp the point being made.

Relax dude.

All these top notch attorneys have nothing better to do than tard back and forth ITT?

Less Henry and PR and more stories about talking to cops please

That's descriptive, sure, you're right. Jackson was describing any lawyer who let his client talk to the police as "not worth his salt".

I wish you were right on that! I've done submissions pre-trial before, which were rejected, only to later have the cases thrown out at Trial. In one case, the Judge queried with the prosecutor whether he was concerned a miscarriage of justice may occur, and directed him to go back to his office and seek further direction from his boss. In another, I was awarded costs against the Police. Both could have been avoided had the prosecuting authorities taken a sensible view of the evidence. I've also kindly told police before their case was weak, but it generally falls on deaf ears, as their egos get in the way.

I'm saying maybe they're lying and therefore your right. in other words, i'm saying the only way you are right is if they are lying. in other words, i'm saying i agree with IP and unless they're lying, you are wrong.

you ****ing ******, holy ****. do i need to explain everything with 4 different wordings just so you can keep up?

Ok now I'm starting to doubt you are actually a lawyer. I might chalk it up to cultural difference except my law school has an exchange with Bond. Nobody goes into law school wanting to be a defence lawyer.

Having you picture on your card is super tacky and something lawyers who run their firms out of strip malls / dilapidated brown square buildings / vans have. I think you realized what I meant which is why you are not pretending we were discussing id.

henry, 16 year olds do not have law schools.

Sorry....just assumed you were in the US

A bit too much legalise for me....I think I agree that the accused has no legal obligation or duty to help the police with the investigation, but obv it can sometimes be in his or her interest to be eliminated as a suspect and this usually involve a disclosure of information.

Edit: Woops, missed the part about how you are legally required to give notice of an alibi....but in the absence of this law are you really going to withhold this if it proves your client could not have committed the crime/

If I was innocent of a crime and had an airtight exculpatory piece of evidence, I'd rather not go to trial, lose my job, be in the paper for being charged with murder etc.

Right....if the albi is not airtight I see the advantage to not showing your hand.

I guess I was asking about something a bit different. I imagine most people that hire you are in deep enough to where there is almost certainly going to be a trial....But if your client has a 99% chance of avoiding a trial by giving certain information to the police I can't imagine any reason to not cooperate.

Oh yay. The Henry and Mrs Henry double team is here.

In before 1000 pages.

LOL. If you lived locally I might take you up on that!

Henry are you from the US?

On a serious note I would take issue with the "nobody wants to be a defense attorney" comment.

I mean, I'm not a lawyer but through my investigative practice I spend alot of time with many criminal defense lawyers and I would have to disagree.

Sure there are people who enter the law profession to be corporate lawyers etc, but many of my lawyer friends really do get off on the trial. It's the reason they're in law. They have a real "I'm a performer and the courtroom is my stage" flair to them.

Most have worked criminal law their entire career, typically starting as prosecutors then switching sides.

I just don't get why you're speaking about criminal defense lawyers like they're too incompetent to practice any other type of law.

Again. My point is that the "25% blah blah incriminating statements oh my god" is-- generously-- misguided because it ignores the fact that most of these incriminating statements are confessions, which IP elaborates on. In a discussion of whether talking to cops = self-incrimination = sure guilty verdict = waiting fifteen years for IP to spring you from jail, that statistic is very alarming.

But even taken as given, it's a non-threat (1 in 50,000 convicted, 1 in ??? acquitted, 1 in ??????? suspected but never charged). Taken realistically, the odds are even better; the risk of wrongly incriminating oneself if one talks to cops is very, very low. So low, in fact, that the risk can't seriously be presented as a reason not to talk to cops, and you're on stronger statistical ground citing misidentification as a reason never to talk to anyone, as that incidence that one of the bastards will finger you in a crime is triple this self-incrimination statistic that's got you so concerned.

LOL. I suspect lawyers in the USA sometimes feel like they just walked out of kangaroo court too.

and this is key when arguing with the video guy who's whole argument is that it can hurt but can never ever help.

pretty sure it can help, I told off a policeman for driving dangerously when he had stopped me for driving dangerously. In telling him off I admited to driving dangerously but I strongly suspect if I had been meek or said nothing he would have done me instead of letting me off - but I cant be sure.

Ahhhh...no pic on my business card!

LOL...not macho...I'm a female. But anyone who knows a criminal defence lawyer personally, knows a debate will wind up with them being effectively cross examined...it is a personality flaw (perhaps) that many of us have.

LOL...I have heaps of other things I could and should be doing, but am enjoying this a bit (kind of, at times...lol). We're not just lawyers, but people too, some like to play poker, some like to browse the net, post to forums, go to dinner etc. You think all we do is appear in Court and have our heads in paperwork?

This and a some