Regent University School of Law - Don't Talk To Police

:gaythread2:

This vid cannot be posted enough times here.

Everyone should see it... Twice

Last Edited by #521 on 01/26/2019 09:23 AM

I personally think principles like the one discussed in that tape should be part of high school civics classes.

It really floored it the first time I saw it when the cop got up and admitted that everything the lawyer said was 100% correct and that nobody, under any circumstances, should talk to police.

Most Police Departments cannot arrest you for "lying" to them. If it goes to trial, and you lie under oath, you can be charged with perjury, but not for lying to the police during questioning.

However, the FBI does have that ability to charge you for lying to them during questioning, and they use it often. They almost always ask you questions that they already know the answers to.

Martha Stewart was charged with "insider trading" (something that is legal for Congressman to do) but went to prison for "Lying to the FBI".

Don't talk to the FBI.

You totally missed the point and probably did not watch the video.

The video does not talk about being arrested for perjury, which can be done by any law enforcement agency but only seems to be used by Mueller's team.

The video (and the accompanying article) say that the police and prosecuting attorneys are FORBIDDEN from using any testimony you give them in a manner in which it can clear your name.

Yep, sorry.. I didn't watch the video.

Ok, I watched it now.

Mostly correct. One exception might be, if the suspect has an easily verified, rock-solid alibi, for the time frame of the crime if it has happened very recently. He might not have to go for the ride downtown.

In Texas, they passed a law that says that if anyone in chain of the State, IE ..from the handling patrol officer, evidence technician, follow up detective, or District attorney, withholds any evidence that might exonerate a suspect, they can be arrested and charged. Case files must contain "everything" collected during the case investigation, whether relevant or not.

The job of police, as is the job of every government employee from dog catcher to president, is to protect the credit rating of the political subdivision they work for.

Well that's the theory anyway.

That's interesting and definitely needs to be a law in every state however, that does not encompass testimony and here is why:

As pointed out in the video, any evidence exonerating a suspect via testimony (if not recorded) will be struck down by the prosecuting attorney as hearsay!

This creates a scenario where an officer could very well be trying to represent a suspect truthfully. On the stand he could try to enter testimony that was given informally but would exonerate the suspect of any crime. That testimony is objected to (by the prosecutor) and ruled hearsay (by the judge) making it inadmissible and irrelevant to the outcome of the trial.

The officer has followed the law and tried to submit all evidence but his evidence was ruled out and the innocent suspect may be wrongly convicted.

That is very weird. I don't know what states or jurisdictions that happens in, but I have never seen, or heard of, a Prosecutor for the DA's office, slapping down the testimony, of a witness for the state, since they need those very same witnesses for the Prosecutions case.
Unless it is one of those "sociopathic" DA's that are more concerned about their "conviction rate" than justice. That Texas law was created exactly because of those types of DA's, who withheld information that could have cleared a suspect.

It actually happens routinely. To verify that one merely has to take a look into the federal rules of evidence.

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: 801

Rule 801(c)(1)(2) - “Hearsay” means a statement that: the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

When one reads that carefully they discover that "hearsay" is ANY statement that a declarant (or defendant, most of the time) does not make WHILE testifying And is offered as EVIDENCE to the truth.

Literal Interpretation: If the defendant doesn't say it him/herself while testifying and another party offers truthful information then it's "hearsay" and inadmissable.

This is further supported by Rule 801(d)(2)(a) - Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

[link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)]

Literal Interpretation: If the opposing party (or prosecutor, most of the time) offers a statement made by the declarant (defendant, most of the time) against the declarant (defendant, most of the time) then the statement is not "hearsay" and can be used in trial.

Did you catch how that works?

If any party other than the defendant offers evidence of statements made by the defendant that shed light on the TRUTH of the matter asserted during trial then it is "hearsay" and inadmissable in trial.

If any party other than the defendant offers evidence of statements made by the defendant that OPPOSE the matter asserted during trial then it is not "hearsay" and admissable in trial.

i LOVE this video so much i have sent it around these past couple of years.

the professor speaks quickly which i enjoyed and the cop even confirms everything that had been said was in fact correct.

ignorance of the law is no excuse!
we hear that all the time.
watch this video and understand why you NEVER speak to the police.
it will be one of the most valuable pieces of information you will EVER need to know.

the 5th Amendment gives you the right remain silent, and
still ask for a glass of water.

To cover up campus crimes of course.

Actually it would be:

Officer: "The Defendant told me ________________" NOT Hearsay

Officer: "The Defendant's Sister told me that the Defendant said _______" Hearsay.

Defendants Sister: "My Brother, The Defendant, told me ________" NOT Hearsay.

Last Edited by StopsniffinmeBrandon on 01/26/2019 01:10 PM

Run out of the all-pork weenies to gobble down?

Rule 801(d)(2)(a) - Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity

It is not considered hearsay only if it OPPOSES the defendants statement.

It would be more like:

Officer: "The Defendant told me ____________ (OPPOSES DEFENDANT STATEMENT)" NOT Hearsay

Officer: "The Defendant's Sister told me that the Defendant said _______ (OPPOSES DEFENDANT STATEMENT)" NOT Hearsay.

Defendants Sister: My Brother, The Defendant, told me ________ (CONFIRMS DEFENDANT STATEMENT)" HEARSAY

Officer: "The Defendant told me ____________ (CONFIRMS DEFENDANT STATEMENT)" HEARSAY

Last Edited by Nawt Meh Prezdunt on 01/26/2019 01:16 PM

What State or Federal section of the law are you quoting?

I have never seen that in my life. Witnesses in a trial are not allowed into the courtroom, to listen to other witness testimony, before they give their own. They are not aware of what has been said before their own testimony.

Witnesses only testify on their own "first-person observations"

I have never seen a Prosecutor cut someone off that is testifying to first-person observations. (they cut them off for Hearsay, which is "second person" observation, or giving personal opinions, rather than facts)

It's fun to find people guilty of treason

Good rule, because if you don’t talk to them, then they can’t lie under oath in court about what you told them.

let them build their case. don't help them do it.