Don't Talk to the Police - EVER!

[Solomwi]

No offense, but did you watch the video ? Accordingly to that, anything that can be evidence against you in a "interview" with the police, is considered "hard evidence", but anything in same "interview" that could be a defense argument is simply hearsay and therefore not admissible.

Not only did I watch both videos, but I'm actually a lawyer in the U.S. I passed evidence in my first year, passed a bar exam with a significant evidence component, and actually have experience working with the rules of evidence in court. Your post indicated that you didn't have a problem with the hard evidence aspect, but with the hearsay aspect if it's in your favor. No offense, but let me start with the very basic foundations and work up from there, and see if it makes more sense (though Shane has done a pretty good job on the issue).

First, hearsay is an out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of the statement. The basic reason that hearsay is inadmissible is that the best evidence of the truth of the statement is testimony by the person who made the statement. A second hand account of "A told me X" is not as reliable or probative as a first hand account by A that "X is true." Basically, if you can't get the person with personal knowledge to testify that something is true, the court won't let you get somebody that person talked to about it to say that it's true because the first person told them so.

Second, there are a number of exceptions which make hearsay admissible. One of these is the "admission by party opponent/statement against interest" exception, which is where the interview with the cop falls. If you admit to something against your interest, it's considered more reliable for the very fact that it's against your interests. It therefore becomes admissible. Note here that we aren't considering how much weight to give the statement. The trier of fact, judge or jury, can still dismiss it as false based on other circumstances. All this exception says is that if you make a statement that is against your interests, the trier of fact can consider that, even if it comes from someone else in court. It's admissible, not necessarily determinative.

Think about it this way: if A sues B for $500, would you, as a juror, be more inclined to believe A if C says "A told me B didn't really owe him any money," or "A told me B owes him money"? In the first case, C may be giving some insight into the matter, but in the second case, C is only parroting what we already know A is claiming, and will say himself.

It's the same thing with the police. Anything you say to them that may be a defense argument is something you can say on the stand yourself. No value is added by having the cop say "Yeah, that's what he told me, too." On the other hand, you saying X on the stand, and the cop saying "well, he told me Y" raises questions of your credibility as a witness, and is therefore fair game for jury consideration. That's in addition to the whole "If saying Y would put him in jail, why would he say Y unless it was true" aspect, which isn't foolproof, but is good enough for admissibility purposes.

[Solomwi]

The only way I can see it being a problem is if we're not talking about a police interview with a witness, but rather a police interview with a third party.

For example, going with the 7/11 robbery again. Lets say the robbery occurred on a Tuesday at 3:00, and during that time I'm in development economics. Now that is a big class in a lecture theater, and I only really know a couple people in that class. Lets say last Tuesday those two people I know were not in attendance and so I couldn't go to them to back up my story, but somebody else remembered me being in class and went to the police and said "Yeah I saw that guy in class, so he couldn't have committed that robbery." That could be a problem if it isn't revealed to me / my attorney. Since, however, I'm pretty sure (I'm not a lawyer) the police are required to reveal that stuff to my attorney prior to the trial, again it doesn't put me at a disadvantage, I would be able to call that witness to testify on my behalf.

Good explanation, overall, but bad example. Here, you'd be asking that person to testify to something he has first hand knowledge of, so hearsay doesn't really come into play. You're right that the prosecutor is required to turn that over to your attorney, but a failure along those lines doesn't really implicate what I think is troubling BC.

[Darius871]

Second, there are a number of exceptions which make hearsay admissible. One of these is the "admission by party opponent/statement against interest" exception, which is where the interview with the cop falls. If you admit to something against your interest, it's considered more reliable for the very fact that it's against your interests. It therefore becomes admissible. Note here that we aren't considering how much weight to give the statement. The trier of fact, judge or jury, can still dismiss it as false based on other circumstances. All this exception says is that if you make a statement that is against your interests, the trier of fact can consider that, even if it comes from someone else in court.

Well, more specifically non-hearsay-by-rule and an "exception" are supposed to be distinct in the sense that the latter is justified by reliability whereas the former implies that the declarant, as a party to the case, is already present to be cross-examined and thus not a speaker of hearsay. But the practical result is the same. [/completely nonproductive nitpick]

[Solomwi]

No offense, but did you watch the video ? Accordingly to that, anything that can be evidence against you in a "interview" with the police, is considered "hard evidence", but anything in same "interview" that could be a defense argument is simply hearsay and therefore not admissible.

The one paragraph version:

You're expected to make self-serving statements. You're not expected to make self-incriminating statements. Therefore, when you do the latter, we let the jury consider it.

The semi-KH version:

No offense, but did you read and understand my response? In it, I explained the reason for the different treatments. ****.

[Solomwi]

Well, more specifically non-hearsay-by-rule and an "exception" are supposed to be distinct in the sense that the latter is justified by reliability whereas the former implies that the declarant, as a party to the case, is already present to be cross-examined and thus not a speaker of hearsay. But the practical result is the same. [/completely nonproductive nitpick]

True, but I was being a bit sloppy in trying to avoid that extra layer of explanation.

[ShaneWalter]

Not only did I watch both videos, but I'm actually a lawyer in the U.S. I passed evidence in my first year, passed a bar exam with a significant evidence component, and actually have experience working with the rules of evidence in court. Your post indicated that you didn't have a problem with the hard evidence aspect, but with the hearsay aspect if it's in your favor. No offense, but let me start with the very basic foundations and work up from there, and see if it makes more sense (though Shane has done a pretty good job on the issue).

First, hearsay is an out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of the statement. The basic reason that hearsay is inadmissible is that the best evidence of the truth of the statement is testimony by the person who made the statement. A second hand account of "A told me X" is not as reliable or probative as a first hand account by A that "X is true." Basically, if you can't get the person with personal knowledge to testify that something is true, the court won't let you get somebody that person talked to about it to say that it's true because the first person told them so.

Second, there are a number of exceptions which make hearsay admissible. One of these is the "admission by party opponent/statement against interest" exception, which is where the interview with the cop falls. If you admit to something against your interest, it's considered more reliable for the very fact that it's against your interests. It therefore becomes admissible. Note here that we aren't considering how much weight to give the statement. The trier of fact, judge or jury, can still dismiss it as false based on other circumstances. All this exception says is that if you make a statement that is against your interests, the trier of fact can consider that, even if it comes from someone else in court. It's admissible, not necessarily determinative.

Think about it this way: if A sues B for $500, would you, as a juror, be more inclined to believe A if C says "A told me B didn't really owe him any money," or "A told me B owes him money"? In the first case, C may be giving some insight into the matter, but in the second case, C is only parroting what we already know A is claiming, and will say himself.

It's the same thing with the police. Anything you say to them that may be a defense argument is something you can say on the stand yourself. No value is added by having the cop say "Yeah, that's what he told me, too." On the other hand, you saying X on the stand, and the cop saying "well, he told me Y" raises questions of your credibility as a witness, and is therefore fair game for jury consideration. That's in addition to the whole "If saying Y would put him in jail, why would he say Y unless it was true" aspect, which isn't foolproof, but is good enough for admissibility purposes.

Oh, thanks for the detailed explanation! Very informative.

[Donegeal]

Hi everybody!!!!

[Lorizael]

Hi everybody!!!!

[Krill]

The semi-KH version:

No offense, but did you read and understand my response? In it, I explained the reason for the different treatments. ****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hi everybody!!!!

Don't talk to him!

[Jaguar]

I thought the power of the state was awesome, comrade?

[Felch]

The police are tools of the kulaks. The NKVD are tools of the workers.

[chequita guevara]

I thought the power of the state was awesome, comrade?

That's your problem, not mine.

[BlackCat]

The one paragraph version:

You're expected to make self-serving statements. You're not expected to make self-incriminating statements. Therefore, when you do the latter, we let the jury consider it.

The semi-KH version:

No offense, but did you read and understand my response? In it, I explained the reason for the different treatments. ****.

Hope that you don't use that kind of language in the court - that will probably make your clients a bit pissed when they are put in jail.

You argue that people just can tell their part of the story at court, and that is very nice. Only problem is how the jury will weight it. Will they consider the incriminating parts (that may be innocent) from the police witness more value than the testimony from the accused that he couldn't have done it ?

No offense, but you don't have KH potential, so please don't try to act as him.

[chequita guevara]

Depending on the community from which the jury is drawn, police testimony may have more or less weight.