Author Topic: Discussion about never talking to police post incident  (Read 436 times)


Frank

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about never talking to police post incident
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2012, 22:26:21 PM »
That's a good general rule. But if someone is involved in an incident in which he used force against another person, and believe that he acted in justified self defense, keeping completely silent may not be the best idea.

But Don't Say Too Much.

Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.

Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.

[1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?

[2] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.

[3] So Massad Ayoob recommends:

* Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.

* Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).

* Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.

*  Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.
   
*  Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

Pleading Self Defense is Very Different From the Common Lines of Defense to a Criminal Charge.

A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.
In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

RNCruz

  • BayProfs Instructor
  • *****
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about never talking to police post incident
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2012, 03:55:55 AM »
In my view, how to respond depends on the state of mind of the individual. Almost everyone is not, and cannot be, rational, clear, concise, accurate and in control immediately after a shooting.  Because of the physiological effects of combat, an accurate recounting of whatever memory exists cannot be assembled until 48 hours after the event.  I suggest reporting the incident immediately, calling your lawyer to be present at any police interview, refusing to be interviewed without your lawyer and putting off an interview for 48 hours, except to say that you were attacked.  However, police are adept at questioning and will certainly try to get more information.  If you can't stop talking, don't start,

Remember anything you say or don't say to the police voluntarily can and will be used against you.  That includes any misstatements, partial statements and other inaccuracies.  Once it's said, although it might be possible to explain later, it cannot be retracted.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 04:07:10 AM by RNCruz »

Frank

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about never talking to police post incident
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2012, 08:32:07 AM »
That's a good point. It's best to say not too much and only the right things. But it's better to say nothing than to say the wrong things.

Just as through training one hopes to prepare physically and mentally to deal with an emergency, one can also prepare mentally to deal with the aftermath.

There's the old adage that in a crisis one doesn't rise to the occasion; he defaults to his level of training.
In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

larry

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about never talking to police post incident
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2012, 09:33:49 AM »
I can't comprehend the physical/mental state I'd be in after having to kill another person.

But I have a clue: When I was a young teen, I was at home alone. I got a phone call that my system had been hit by a car and was on route to the hospital. I had my mother's contact number but was physically unable to operate a dial telephone.

Good discussion, guys.

larry

RNCruz

  • BayProfs Instructor
  • *****
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: Discussion about never talking to police post incident
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2012, 06:29:06 AM »
Just to clarify...there are no negative consequences at trial to staying silent.  See Doyle v. Ohio http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0426_0610_ZO.html

Quote
It is probable that, even today, when there is much less ignorance about these matters than formerly, there is still a general belief that you must answer all questions put to you by a policeman, or at least that it will be the worse for you if you do not.

Devlin, The Criminal Prosecution in England 32 (1958).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2012, 06:52:59 AM by RNCruz »