4 ms·

If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you tell a police officer that you did not commit

If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you tell a police officer that you did not commit a crime, you can't have the police officer testify in your defense that you told him that you did not commit the crime. Witnessing things is a completely different matter.

SilasX 4y ago
Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like... During Mirandized interrogation: Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me." In court: Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?" Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists." Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?" Officer: "After she picked up a kni--" Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!" Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine." ^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".
anotherman554 4y ago
"If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you." This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are guilty. So it's a hearsay exception. The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people going to jail and the right people not going to jail.
kkielhofner 4y ago
Talking to the "regular" police and talking to a federal investigator are two completely different things. At the federal level they have "false or misleading statements"[0] which is a felony with a five year max. People have been convicted and done prison time on this alone based on nothing other than the notes and testimony from a federal investigator. At the state level probably the best they have is "obstruction of justice"[1] which requires things like physically interfering with the police or destroying evidence and even those actions have lesser penalties than "false or misleading statements". I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP. [0] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges-for-false-misleading-statements/ https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges... [1] - https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-florida.html https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-flori...

SilasX 4y ago

Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like... During Mirandized interrogation: Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me." In court: Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?" Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists." Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?" Officer: "After she picked up a kni--" Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!" Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine." ^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".

anotherman554 4y ago

"If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you." This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are guilty. So it's a hearsay exception. The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people going to jail and the right people not going to jail.

kkielhofner 4y ago

Talking to the "regular" police and talking to a federal investigator are two completely different things. At the federal level they have "false or misleading statements"[0] which is a felony with a five year max. People have been convicted and done prison time on this alone based on nothing other than the notes and testimony from a federal investigator. At the state level probably the best they have is "obstruction of justice"[1] which requires things like physically interfering with the police or destroying evidence and even those actions have lesser penalties than "false or misleading statements". I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP. [0] - https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges-for-false-misleading-statements/ https://www.iannfriedman.com/blog/2019/april/federal-charges... [1] - https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-florida.html https://www.pallegarlawfirm.com/obstructing-justice-in-flori...