Some legal stuff I learned:

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
27
You have a right to a grand jury (12 jurors) if you are charged with a felony, defined as having the possibility of more than a year in jail. You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have a right to a jury (6 or 7 jurors) if you commit a misdemeanor, defined as by the possibility of jail time. Procedures are abreviated, and if found guilty, many courts often raise the penalty for wasting their time. Jail time often is not given for first time offenses if you plead guilty. (depends on offense)

You do not have to be proven guilty for an infraction. A judge will look at the evidence, and if more than 50% points to you being guilty, the judge can convict you.

You always have a right to remain silent, even if they do not read you that right. Miranda rights come from a supreme court decision interpreting the 5th amendment, which amoung other things, says you can not be made to testify against yourself. Depending how you use it, cops might find it suspicious, and might be able to mention your silence in court.

Police do not have to read you your miranda rights. If they formally arrest you and have an investigator question you, then anything you say to the investigator can't be used against you unless they read you the rights. But if you answer questions before the arrest, they can use that against you even though you were not read your rights. Exactly when you go from being detained to being under arrest if vague, but is 100% certain when you are in your cell, and 70% certain when you are in the back of the car. Not being read your rights does not mean the case against you will be dropped.

Confessions are sufficient for conviction, as long as they have at least one piece of circumstantial evidence. Confessing to being near a crime scene can really hurt you even if you did not confess to the crime. That is why you should remain silent, even though the cops says "an innocent person has nothing to lose." But just tell them, "Officer, I'm invoking my Miranda rights because I heard on every TV show that everyone, even innocent people, should remain silent. I am just following that advice from people wiser than I am, even though I agree with you and don't understand why I should not just answer the questions." Play dumb along those lines and invoke the Miranda rights again. If you say that, they can't say you were acting suspicious. If you just act scared and say you want to remain silent, you will seem very suspicious.

Any time an officer gives you a terry stop (not arrested, just questioned and lightly frisked for weapons, do not run. You could play dumb and invoke the miranda rights as above, but you might piss them off. It just depends what they have on you, and if they can charge you. Even if they charge you, supress the evidence they found. Now if you gave them probable cause and the judge agrees, then you might get the full penalty for the miranda bs.

Officers may lie, and often do. They tell you they already have evidence, but will give you a lighter charge if you confess. They say your friend ratted you out, and that your story better match his. Unless you and your friend know you would not do that, and know what the other would say, they will get an easy confession out of you, since lying to an officer is a crime. They can tell you, "Your friend said X. You said Y. Are you lying to an officer, or will you testify against your friend that X is not true?"

They may also lie to you that they had probable cause, and that the case against you is air tight. Unless you get a lawyer to look at it, you might not know. You can file suppressions on your own, but unless you know the best reason to give the judge to suppress the evidence, it will be denied.

Circumstantial evidence can be used against you. If you admit to being anywhere near where a crime occured, before knowing that is where it occured, it can be used against you. If you know you will be charged, it is best to invoke your rights and force them to prove you guilty. But if they have enough suspicion about you, they can hold you in jail and charge you. If the crime was non-serious, you may be better off talking, and convincing the officer you are innocent.

Police may search you any time they want. You do not have a right to resist. Your rights to be secure from unlawful search means that if a cop did not have a warrant or probable cause, you can have all evidence found sealed so they can't use it against you in court. A judge makes this decision. Neither you nor the cop has the authority to define probably cause. The cop only may decide if it is worth his time, and he does have the authority to arrest anyone in order to restore order. Do not resist.

Lawyers always start off by getting all evidence from the prosecution, and filing a motion to supress each people. They use any loop hole they can to suppress it. The more they suppress, the less evidence the prosecution has. They quetion instrumentation. They question witnesses and find contradictions. Once they get enough evidence ineffective, they either convince the prosecution to drop the case, or they negotiate a plea bargain.

Plea bargains are much more effective when the prosecution knows their is a chance they will lose.

You can do all this yourself, but a lot of it must be done within 10 days, or you need to know the grounds to claim for suppression.
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
27
But if you are innocent, and were no where near the crime scene, answering questions on the spot and telling them who they may call to verify your story will help you a lot. Unless they think you convinced people to lie about you before hand. Still, the police can cross reference both of you about many details. If they check out, it shows you are telling the truth. If you don't answer questions right then, they will think you made up stories with someone else later, and not as convincing.

So it just depends if you are a social person with people who were with you. If not, stay silent.
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
27
Some libertarians have resisted searches, saying the search violated their constitutional rights. They went to jail for that. What they should have done was filed a motion to suppress the evidence found, on the grounds that there was no probable cause to search them.

Some states maintain that long line car searches at boarder stops violate probably cause. Congress disagrees. Currently, some checks exist and others do not, and it is possible your motion to suppress evidence will be rejected.
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
27
If defendants could decide what is or is not probable cause, they'd always say there was no probable cause. Cops would say they had probable cause. That is why the judge decides. The cop just brings you to the judge. Do not fight the cop. Instead, file a motion to suppress the evidence.
 
Top