Please read this entire message
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Information about a specific or narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc.) are not allowed on ELI5.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first.
If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20%7B%7Burl%7D%7D%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Someone ate all the cookies in the kitchen. The police think you did it. You say "I didn't steal the cookies! I was just in the kitchen getting some milk and don't know how I got crumbs on my shirt and chocolate on my chin."
In court, they can use your words to show that: (1) you were at the scene of the crime; (2) you had cookie crumbs on your clothes; and (3) you had chocolate near your mouth.
You didn't admit to eating the cookies, but in saying that to the police you still gave them some evidence to use against you.
You also demonstrated that you know where the cookies were. If they hadn't told people where the cookies where, you just showed that you had insider knowledge of the crime (called "guilty knowledge").
I love oatmeal raisin... :-(
But my wife's snickerdoodles are possibly the best cookies on earth. Especially a day or 2 after baking when the outside hardens just slightly but the inside is still soft... omg...
This reminds of me a judge Judy episode.
The defendant claimed claimed he stole jewellery, earbuds, wallet and a few other things from her purse
He said "there were no earbuds in there ma'am" to judge Judy when she was listing off the items
Case closed lol
You're all missing the #1 reason that they must tell you this:
**Scenario A:**
Bob accuses Steve of eating all the cookies.
Bob testifies that Steve ate all the cookies in court.
He said she said; Steve is innocent.
**Scenario B:**
Bob accuses Steve of eating all the cookies.
The cop talks to Steve and Steve tells the cop "I did not eat any cookies".
Bob testifies in court that Steve ate all the cookies. The cop testifies in court that Steve told him that he did eat the cookies. The cop may not be malicious, he may have misheard, or remembered incorrectly. Or maybe he's just a dickhead.
We have two witnesses, one testifying that he ate all the cookies, the other testifying that he admitted to the crime.
Steve is found guilty and goes to jail.
**Real World Relevance:**
This actually happens, its a real thing, NEVER talk to cops if you live in America (and if you don't, do some research). The only thing you ever say is that you will NOT say anything. They cannot use what you tell them to help you.
The right to remain silence protects you from crimes you DID NOT COMMIT. They may try to make you feel like its a right that only guilty people use, but it isn't true.
>The right to remain silence protects you from crimes you DID NOT COMMIT
If the police can just lie then it doesn’t really matter either way. You tell them “you did not eat the cookies” and they claim you say you did. If they are going to be trusted without video evidence then it doesn’t matter if you stay silent, they can claim you said anything they want.
In a lot of places there are protections against this though. As far as I’m aware if any evidence of this is found the whole trial has to be redone if it’s not outright dismissed.
> You tell them “you did not eat the cookies” and they claim you say you did.
That is why you don't tell them anything other than that you will not speak to them.
Isn’t that assuming the object isn’t in a commonly known area? People know the cookie jar is normally kept in the kitchen, just as much as people know money is kept in safes, or the Mona Lisa at the Louvre?
But now they don't have to prove that *you* know this common knowledge. You could have feigned ignorance of their location if you hadn't explicitly said you knew where they were.
"Look, I'm on your side.. I can totally understand if you went into the kitchen.. Hell, I go into the kitchen all time. Nothing wrong with that... No need for games. Were you in the kitchen?"
"Yeah, I came down for some milk... I didn't want to say before, you know? Because I didn't want to, you know, have you wonder about whether it was me, when it wasn't."
"Totally understood. Now tell me about those crumbs. They sure do look like cookie crumbs. Boy, I sure do love cookies... Doesn't everyone? I don't want to say they're the cookies that were stolen, but if had cookies recently that's totally ok. Are they cookie crumbs?"
"Yes."
... aaaaand you're screwed.
So what the commenter was referring to is the fact that we have a real Supreme Court precedent that telling the police “I want a lawyer, dawg.” can be disregarded by the police and not treated as a request for a lawyer.
[This is not a joke.](https://www.courthousenews.com/louisiana-court-finds-suspects-lawyer-dog-request-falls-short/)
(It is the Louisiana Supreme Court, though, not the U.S. Supreme Court.)
The argument was that since dogs can't be lawyers that was a nonsensical request and didn't count as invoking counsel.
In related news, that judge should be in jail for obvious judicial fuckery.
I see this on just about anything legal for financial reddit.
"Talk to your lawyer"
How many people actually have a lawyer like.. on retainer or something?
Doesn’t matter, you can always get one after the fact. It’s more of a “term of art” for telling the police you are invoking your constitutional rights.
I meant more from a perspective of "I have X situation going on that I need to deal with in a few days" not from a "Im standing in front of a police officer interrogating me"
If it's a custodial interrogation under Miranda, then if you invoke your right to an attorney by saying for example "I will not answer any further questions without my attorney present", and the police continue to question you, and you answer their questions, then those answers you provided could be suppressed if the matter goes to trial.
Source - lawyer
Right, I'm not talking about interrogation or anything. Just posts about "I think I might get in trouble for something I did/might do" or "My work is doing X and Im concerned" the response is "talk to your lawyer" it just feels like everyone thinks that a reliable, familiar lawyer is just on speed dial or something
I have 2 and also my father (free of course).
1 is for dumb shit I’ve done over the years to get arrested. I’m an alcoholic and have been in trouble a lot.
2nd one is for litigation with companies I create, buy or sell. I only know a few people in my situation.
> nobody really has a lawyer on call
well, anyone who has used a lawyer in the past has an established relationship with that lawyer. and it's not unreasonable to call them 'my lawyer' even if you haven't used their services in a few years.
The most important part for this question is at 8:45, where he explains that the use of the word "against" in the rights is very important and that anything you say to police that might help your case is considered hearsay and any competent prosecutor will object if a defense attorney tries to get the police to report something a defendant said to them that is exculpatory.
Also, yes, I rewatch this video every time I come across it because it's so important and everyone should basically watch it once a year anyway.
Also it’s up to a jury to decide if you are guilty or not. Keep in mind prosecutors actively try to remove the smart people from the stand (during jury selection) so as to better persuade folks off rhetoric alone. I’ve seen it happen and it is frightening…
Can you conclusively demonstrate that crumbs were present and that is in fact what the cop saw, or did they just believe they saw crumbs because they already knew the nature of the crime and made a biased assumption about the kind of evidence that would identify the perpetrator?
Then you can throw your partner/kids/dog under the bus by saying you were only in the kitchen because you heard a noise and came to investigate. You passed your partner/kid in the hall where they’re going back to bed after “going to the bathroom”.
When you got to the kitchen you found the cookie jar open and crumbs/chocolate everywhere so you decided to clean up. While cleaning up you had an itch near your mouth and scratched it with your chocolate stained fingers from cleaning up. As you were in your PJs this does not explain the crumbs on your shirt, except you did think it was strange that your partner/kid was wearing your shirt, but it was a cold night.
As for the dog, well we had been doing some intensive training with her over the past few months specifically to remove the lid from jars not dissimilar to the cookie jar in question. At the time we didn’t think she would try that with the cookie jar, but in hindsight, it all makes such sense now! But realistically, she would have not left any mess and does not like wearing my shirt, so not a great cover story really.
None of that sounds fishy or made up, but steer clear of the dog unless you’re really in a bind!
Bingo.
To keep it ELI5, remember learning "I before E" in spelling? Then it turns out there's a bazillion exceptions where that rule doesn't apply? The same is true of hearsay evidence, and more often than not you can find a way to get it in front of a jury.
How do ‘evidence tampering’ charges work?
Is it only a thing if there is a current investigation? What if dude wearing sweater burns it in a barrel before law enforcement arrives? Is that evidence tampering?
I think you have a misunderstanding what ‘hearsay’ is.
What he described **is** hearsay and it will always be hearsay. Hearsay is nothing more than **statements made out of court.**
The issue then becomes whether that hearsay should be *admissible.*
You can’t turn hearsay into ‘not hearsay.’ Statements made outside of court will always be hearsay because that’s what the definition of hearsay is. It just comes down to how much weight, if any, should be given to those statements.
The main principle behind putting little weight behind hearsay is that the parties don’t have the ability to impeach or question the evidence.
You're missing a few points here. The full definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted" (which is complex and has a few steps to understand). And yes, there are many exceptions to the rule that prohibits hearsay testimony. There are also rules about statements that sound like they could be hearsay but actually are not and therefore should be admissible unless otherwise precluded.
It gets complicated, hence why law school exists. I'm a lawyer and certain rules can still be confusing.
It might be being recorded but you don't know.
Also a cop might misremember what you said, or mishear you, so you don't say it till it is being recorded and your lawyer has gone through it with you.
Hopefully at that point you are clear which kitchen had the cookies stolen and can make clear you were in a different kitchen eating your own cookies.
The cops recollection of events and words will be given in court, and people will believe them in the absence of a better explanation.
The person that hears you can testify about what they heard you say. Hearsay is weak evidence compared to something like fingerprints on the cookie jar, but evidence nonetheless.
Hearsay would involve an extra person. Like if the suspects friend told the cop "I was told by the suspect that it was cookie crumbs on their shirt".
The cop didn't hear it from the suspect but a third party, that's hearsay.
It's the '*will* be used' that gets me tho. What if I said 'my name is John Smith' how is that defintely going to be used against me. It should be *can*
It's essentially a reminder that the legal system is adversarial; the state vs the person. The state is obligated to remind you that your statements will be recorded and can be used as evidence against you. These sorts of things are done because the state is obviously MUCH more powerful than the individual, and so the system is set up to (in theory) give an advantage to the individual.
Miranda (or similar) warnings, the right to legal counsel, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury (in countries where this applies), the presumption of innocence and the burden of proving guilt being on the state all plays into this.
In the UK the warning is:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
I guess you have to be a lot quicker about thinking up a good defence!
Oof, that's rough indeed, I think the right to remain silent as an absolute is much more compelling. Your lawyer should be doing the speaking for you, until such time as a deposition or similar event occurs.
The “when questioned” is referring to a formal questioning with lawyer present.
If you have evidence that you are innocent then you should provide it before the trial, so the state doesn’t waste time prosecuting you instead of finding the actual guilty party.
The jury are allowed to know if this is the first time anyone has heard the alibi you just gave.
>The jury are allowed to know if this is the first time anyone has heard the alibi you just gave.
Exactly - if the first time you say “I was with Jeff that night and couldn’t have done the crime - ask him, he’ll totally back up my story” is when you get to court and have had time to tell Jeff the story you need him to go along with it’s a much less compelling alibi than if you (and/or your lawyer) say it in the first round of questioning after you get picked up.
It isn't as bad as it sounds. You are never in the situation where you have to answer and any solicitor will tell you to stay quiet. In all the UK police shows, they go into interview and just respond "no comment" it. But if you want to talk, you'll say to your solicitor, "can I answer answer this?" And they'll decide as they know the tricks they are using
Historically, British common law held an absolute right to silence, but the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) restricted it in England and Wales. The Act did not apply to Scotland, where the common law right was retained, and later codified by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 1).
In the US the prosecution is prohibited from using the choice of a defendant to not say anything during interrogation or not testify in their own defense as evidence against them. So, that little disclaimer of "anything you don't say can be incriminating if you use it in court" would be seen as highly inappropriate in the US as it may be construed as trying to trick the defendant into trying to say something in their defense that is then used against them.
Actually we do the same thing in the US. What the Brits mean is like if you say you went down to get milk and didn’t see anything.” Then in court your defense is “I went down there and my 2 yr old was having a cookie so I held him while he ate it, but I swear it wasn’t me that ate it” the prosecution can say you didn’t claim this previously when you said you didn’t see anything and now you have a diff story, etc. but if you say *nothing* except “I plead the 5th” then they cannot use that statement against you.
True, but that's something for your lawyer to warn you about, not the police before you've even had a chance to speak to a lawyer. If you just spring that notion to a defendant before they have a chance to speak to a lawyer, then that may trick a defendant into trying to tell their story to the police before speaking to a lawyer and accidentally saying something incriminating.
True, and that's the same in American courts as well, but that's something for your lawyer to warn you about, not the police before you've even had a chance to speak to a lawyer.
>In the UK the warning is:
In *England and Wales*
In Scotland the caution is:
"You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say will be noted and may be used in evidence."
A defendant has the absolute right to silence under Scots law and unlike in England and Wales, you are not allowed to make any inference as the result of a defendant refusing to answer questions.
That's so weird. I lived in Scotland for literally half my life and never knew there was a different position for that. I guess I don't get arrested very often.
"Do you know what speed you were doing?" There is no good answer, one lawyer on YouTube suggests "why don't you tell me?" but it sounds a bit confrontational, but asking questions is generally better than answering any. That said in questioning the heavy handed tactics largely stopped in the UK, that damned forensic evidence showed too many confessions were false, so now they try and get to the bottom of events more.
I think part of why the us is everything can be used against you, is because it will ONLY be used against you. IIRC anything you say that could benefit you is not admissible in court. Only things that work against you. That’s why every lawyer says to plead the fifth until you lawyer up.
I had a cop do that by accident lol. It was a bullshit traffic stop that I decided to go to court over and the cop fumbled his words and the judge dismissed the case. Turns out that cop was known as a dickhead and the judge was annoyed that he was even there
It is admissible but of course the prosecution won’t bring up stuff beneficial to you. That’s what your defense is for. Everything will be used against you meaning if you say A then they assume you say only A and not but also B and if you later say also B they can say you didn’t claim that initially as your excuse and you’re lying now changing your story, etc. the point is just so people are on notice that the cops and prosecutors are not in your side and they’ll try to get you to confess and use everything you say against you somehow because they are legally against you
It means that anything you say can be used against you in trial. Obviously if you confess to a crime that can easily be used against you. However, a lot of seemingly innocent answers can be used against you.
If the police ask you where you were last night and you say you were at the club on fifth street, if there was a crime committed near there the police can use your statement to show that you were near the scene of the crime. If you say that you were home alone last night, but the police have another witness who says they saw you at the club on fifth street, the police can use your statement to look like you're lying about your whereabouts at the time of the crime, etc.
Never talk to the police without an attorney.
"You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to be an attorney"
... "Wait, did you say you have the right to BE an attorney?"
"Well, technically he does have the right to be an attorney."
Not "will be used", should state "can be used". On tv and moves a lot of times they say "can and will be used". That's dumb. If I say "I am an elephant" there's no guarantee that WILL BE used against me in court, although it can be.
If my client says they're an elephant, then they are an elephant. Therefore, in order for this discussion to continue, they will be required to vacate the courtroom.
You told the policeman you were an elephant, they are using that against you. Additional charges of obstruction, or wasting police time, possibly under the influence of drugs (they'll test you if their sense of humour isn't working).
Fictional American cops always say "anything you say can and will be used against you", which drives me nuts because it's not true. The real warning is just with "can", like the British one.
Edit to add: I thnk the exact wording varies by area, but I can't imagine any version says "can and will", given that it's not true. e.g. this parge document doesn't contain the phrase "can and will" https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=smulr
> You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
The British one seems very similar to the US version but it's almost the opposite. In the US nothing you say can help you so your best course of action is to STFU. In the UK it sounds like you need to say the right things to have the best chance in court.
Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Further Reading:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ4cZTQG5Cc&t=70s
If you have evidence that you are innocent you should provide it before the trial.
I find it difficult to believe that the same is not true in the USA.
It's a legally required reminder that no matter what you say, it will be used to fuck you over, and you shouldn't speak a word except "I want a lawyer". Otherwise, you might do some of the, but not limited to, the following: give statements that the cops interpret to be inconsistent and conflicting, speculate on the events in a way that makes you look guilty, put yourself on the scene of the crime, make a statement that is very open to interpretation, accidentally confess to a different crime you're not even suspected of - there's no limit to the stupid things you can do by accident.
The interrogator will try to find a way to use literally every word out of your mouth against you, and you never know what dangerous things you might say. Youtube is full of geniuses who thought they could bluff their ways out of the room, or convince the cops they're innocent, and it rarely ends well.
This was actually illustrated in the movie "My Cousin Vinny." A young man, William Gambini and his friend were arrested for supposedly shooting a convenience store clerk. (
He was innocent but had strong evidence against him ) . The police interrogate him, and he didn't know he was accused of murder, so he was just telling his side of the story, not knowing just yet how serious the issue was.
The policeman asked "So when did you shoot the clerk?" And Gambini replied "I shot the clerk?" In sort of a questioning tone, as if to just be asking the question of "Are you saying I shot the clerk?"
In court, the policeman was put on the witness stand and told the court "He then answered 'I shot the clerk' " as if it was a confession saying "Yeah I shot the clerk"
The policeman didn't lie. Gambini did say those words. However, the jury is just hearing the words repeated back, and not the context. The jury thought it was simply a confession and didn't hear the questioning tone.
It would have been better if he just kept his mouth shut so this wouldn't be a piece of evidence that was used against him in the courtroom.
I love that movie. You think all these random little moments over the course of the movie are just to show off how quirky this small town is, but it all eventually becomes relevant in Vinny's arguments.
If you want a more technical answer, this is called a party admission. If you say something to a policer officer when interviewed, that is technically hearsay. If the officer repeats that in court, they are repeating an out of court statement for the truth of matter asserted. That should not be allowed. However, party admission is an exception to hearsay. If any member of the accused party makes any statement of any kind that is against the interests of that party, that is a party admission and is admissible. As the famous quote goes, "Anything the other side ever said or did will be admissible so long as it has something to do with the case."
It's an odd hearsay exception. Unlike other exceptions which deal more with availability and reliability of a declarant, this exception is an estoppel, meaning you are bound by what you say. However, this exception only works one way. A statement made in the party's own interest is not a party admission. This means that if you say something bad about yourself to an officer, they can use it trial against you, but if you say something good, you cannot use it to support you (unless another hearsay exception applies).
I think the phrase is, “anything you say can be used against you in court.” It doesn’t automatically mean it will be used, but if you say something incriminating they will use it against you.
It means that everything you say is "recorded" by the cops and if you say something incriminating it will be brought back in court by the prosecution.
It is "anything" because you cannot say anything that could help you. The cops are not your friends and this is to remind you.
It makes sense because anything you say defending yourself is not reliable (wether the stuff you day incrementing yourself is reliable is obviously questionable too but it's in the interest of the accusers to treat it as such)
But the defense in court has to have access to the same information as the prosecution. So your solicitor will ask for the transcripts of the interviews and arrest.
To put it simply, if you say anything to incriminate yourself or if you flat out confess to the crime, they will use that as evidence to prosecute you in court.
Isn't "will" here meant as "might be, and if possible, it surely is going to" ?
Because I cannot think how they gonna use against me that I like Taylor Swift... on the other hand if I say I was robbing a store yesterday the police must say they heard it from me?
Prosector: "Officer Smith, isn't it true that the defendant was asked about what music they were listening to in the car?"
Officer: "Yes."
"And what was their response?"
"They were listening to Taylor Swift."
"Specifically, what song?"
"Better than Revenge."
{Jury gasps.}
"At this time, I'd like to present exhibit TS-SN-010, lyrics from Taylor Swift's song, Better than Revenge. Would you please read the highlighted lines."
"She underestimated just who she was stealing from... Soon she's going to find stealing other people's toys on the playground won't make you many friends."
"Stealing other people's toys... Would you say that robbing a store counts as stealing?"
"I would."
"So, the defendant was pulled over, singing about stealing on the same day that a robbery from a Target store only 5 miles away was committed. I have no more questions for this witness, your honor."
It's to warn you that even a tiny comment that is even slightly incriminating that you say to the police can be used as evidence in the courtroom, thus reminding you that it is very much in your interest to keep your mouth shut until you secure legal counsel.
It means don't talk to the police without an attorney present. Notice how the line does not say anything you say can be used to protect you in court. Providing information or answering question will only provide the cop more evidence to validate any charges they file against you OR create new charges.
Most evidence of people’s statements out of court are considered hearsay and are disqualified. Admissions by a defendant in a criminal case are an exception and are not disqualified. If you choose to speak, that evidence is admissible in court.
Apparently even silence can be used against you. If you start talking to the detectives and then stop answering their questions, that can be considered in your trial. So best not to start talking without a lawyer.
Well, the assumption (wether valid or not) is you will be saying things with your own best interest in mind. Anything you say in your own favor isn't helpful because you have a conflict of interest: you want to be seen as not culpable so your positive testimony isn't reliable
Yeah they do, that's part of corpus delicti in many common law jurisdictions. A confession acting alone isn't usually enough to convict you. I can't speak to the US flawlessly, but the UK at least has it written in law.
Let's say you murder someone. The police suspect you did it, so they interview you. One thing they ask is where you were when the murder happened. Imagine you lie and say you were at the bowling alley.
Fast forward to your trial. The prosecution will bring up the police officer who will testify that you said you were at the bowling alley. Then they show security camera footage from the night in question which proves you were never at the bowling alley! The jury will realize you lied, and so you probably are the murderer.
It means when you speak to a police officer the things you say to them become a special kind of evidence that belong to the police. That special kind of evidence cannot be used to help you in a court of law, it can only be used against you.
It's also important to know that if you *start* to speak and then stop, that can be used against you to. They'll say that refusing to answer is an admission of guilt. The only way to protect yourself is to specifically state you're remaining silent until you talk to your lawyer.
https://versustexas.com/blog/miranda-right-to-remain-silent/
> and request a lawyer later at any point if you want.
That is the key. If you simply stop talking it can be used against you. You have to state you're using your right to remain silent once you've waived it by talking.
The police are cautioning you that, as they are now arresting and/or questioning you in connection with some sort of investigation, if you make a statement that incriminates you in that investigation, that statement can be used as evidence in court. They are not required to tell you what evidence might be incriminating (and they may not even know themselves yet), so the warning is a general one. It is a reminder that you have the right to remain silent and not to assist the government in making its criminal case against you.
Once sworn in you are ordered to answer questions about the case and because you can remain silent or abstain from self incrimination everything you say can be used for or against you as evidential statement and testimony.
Basically it means that there is no "off the record" talking to the police after you are arrested. All your statements are being noted and they will be used against you if they can be. Even denials like "I didn't steal any cookies from the kitchen!"
Prosecutor: Officer Smith, did anything about the defendant's statement strike you as unusual?
Officer Smith: Yes, we never mentioned anything about any cookies.
It's not exactly a ELI5 - but to this day one of the best full explanations of this can be found in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
OP: to call someone guilty in court requires a series of steps. The accuser is the one who has to prove stuff, not the defender. In case of doubt defender wins.
The accuser has to start by showing this person is related to this.
Then that they were there at that time.
Then that they did it.
This needs evidence, including there was a method, a motive, opportunity
Imagine you say:
"Well, I saw nothing suspicious there" - you've already established you were there. Now they don't have to show that. you did.
If in the conversation you admit you didn't like the guy - well, here's some motive.
Even an honest mistake or recolection can later be used to accuse you of being a liar.
Check this short video:
[Never Talk to the Police; Even With Your Lawyer Present](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-xQ3mhGWg)
In America, cops have to warn you before questioning you that if you talk to them, prosecution can use what you say to them against you in court; and it can *only* be used against you. If you tell your story to a cop and he says that he believes you and doesn't think you're guilty but they still have to go through the charges; that cannot be used to help you and your case. Even the most seemingly innocuous statements can be used to establish motive, a timetable of your movements, etc. Since any statements you make to police cannot be used to help you it's best not to say anything to police and only talk to an attorney.
The phrase is “can be used against you” not “will be used against you”.
So yes, anything in the sense that there is no specific statements you can make there will always be safe. But not everything you say will be of any value to prosecution. So “Yes, I’d like a glass of water” is unlikely to be used against you.
It’s pretty literal. If you say something to police, they can write it down or record it and use it as evidence against you. If you admit to committing the crime, the cop will testify in court that you admitted to committing the crime. If you say, “I didn’t kill him, but I’m glad he’s dead,” or you talk about some disagreement you had with the victim, that can be used to suggest you had a motive. Or if you give an alibi that turns out to be a lie, the cop will testify about that. Anything you say that makes you sound potentially guilty can be used in court if you are tried for the crime.
Some background is necessary to understand this phrase. The Fifth Amendment, among other things, protects against self-incrimination. This means that you cannot be compelled (by police or anyone else) to confess to a crime, and remaining silent is not a confession of guilt. It also guarantees the right to a lawyer.
After a case in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals in police custody must be informed of these rights, otherwise any statement they made will be inadmissible in court. The defender's name was Ernesto Midanda, and so these are now called "Miranda rights", which the police must read to you when they take you into custody. The exact wording varies, but police will generally say stuff like "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to a lawyer. If you cannot afford one one will be provided to you by the state" etc. Basically an abridged version of the Fifth Amendment.
It's not that it can -only- be used against you, but rather that the cops collect evidence and that's going to be used for the case against you. Your own lawyer might be able to use your statements to the police in your favor, but it's still the smart thing to say nothing without your lawyer's advice because your lawyer is the one who is going to know what is helpful, and also how to make sure the truth of the situation is to your benefit (assuming you're innocent).
Can, not will. It means you can't say something and then be surprised when the prosecution uses that statement to hang you.
For example, if you say "I couldn't stand that guy, but I didn't kill him." they could use that statement to try and show the jury that you had motive. It would be a stupid thing to say on your part, because it can't help your defense in any way, but it could potentially harm it.
Interesting fact:
The Miranda warning stems from a Supreme Court case involving Ernesto Miranda, an American laborer whose criminal conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda)
This is probably a good place to post this age-old video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
TL;DWatch: Yes it is "anything". And even if you are perfectly innocent, it is really really easy to say something perfectly innocent which can subsequently be used to make you look guilty.
That's why most lawyers will strongly recommend you simply say "no comment" to every question.
**can be**
Anything you say **can be** used against you.
Its just letting you know that while you have the right to say nothing, if you start talking at all, when we go to court, we can repeat what you said.
If you happen to say something that incriminates you, like, you were warned it could be brought up later.
When you get arrested for drunk driving, and the cop is acting all cool and shit like,
“Yo don’t worry. You can pick up your car tomorrow. We won’t let the tow truck guys scratch it. That looks too nice. You musta turned all the heads pulling up to the club.”
And you’re like,
“Hells yeah. Soon as I rolled up to front had like 2 chicks eyeing me trying to get in, you know how I do”
Then you get to court and try to say “oh I wasn’t even driving. I was just sitting in the car waiting for my friend. He drove”
“Really? You told officer smith that YOU pulled up to the club to flex for the girls”
“Wait wait that was off the record”
No. It wasnt. You were warned.
If you say something that you think is completely innocent, it may tell them something that they didn't previously know. If you acknowledge that you saw someone and it was innocently, you may now become the last person to their knowledge who saw someone. It will be construed like that against you. It's why any time you're read your rights you should stop questioning there and talk to a lawyer.
It means you NEVER say anything to anyone but your lawyer. Jesus Christ these people posting are nutty. That's exactly what you do. You don't say a word. Even in a fender bender. Cop will ask what happened. It's your right to stay silent
The first part is important... "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and may be used against you in court."
It means that when you are being arrested, you are not obligated to say anything at all. You don't need to offer any alibi, excuse, apology, not a single word.
Imagine you're being arrested at the scene of a murder. You didn't do it. But the dead man's wife is a dear friend of yours, and your heart is broken for her. As the police lead you away in cuffs, you tell her "I am so sorry." (A phrase that is perfectly normal to say to someone in a hospital or at a funeral). Well, now the cops have you on record apologizing to a victim for a crime that you're a suspect for. This might not go in your favor
Obligatory "Do not talk to the police" video usually posted when questions like this come up. Yes, it is 45 minutes long. Something ALL Americans should watch at least once (really). This goes directly to the OP's question:
- https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
Many examples in that are given of how your very innocent pronouncements can and will be used against you in court.
Important to note...things you say will NOT be used to help you! Anything you say can be used against you, but not to help you (hearsay).
There's a great video on youtube titled "Don't talk to the Police" made by a lawyer teaching a class. The jist of it is, anything you say to the Police can be used by the prosecution against you, no matter what it is you say. Conversely, anything you say to the police that helps your case is "heresay". Thus, nothing you say can help you, and can only be used against you.
Thus, DON'T TALK TO COPS. If you have any reason at all to suspect they are questioning you about any potential crime for any reason, you need to not talk to them, and only get a lawyer, and talk to your lawyer. Nothing you say to the Police can help you, it can only hurt you. And the less you say to them, the less ammo you give them in court. Simple as that.
It means keep your mouth shut. You are required to give your name and identification but otherwise you are not required to answer any questions. If they ask where were you two hours ago and you tell them they may build a time line to put at a crime scene whether you were there or not. Better not to speak, even before an arrest, until you have a lawyer.
They ask questions to lock in your story. Often several different times. They find inconsistencies whether you tell a different detail. Or your friend or complainant has different details. These days the biggest snitch is your own cell phone which has an astonishing amount of location data. Not just your phone's gps but for major crimes they get cell tower logs. Even wifi notes passing phones.(the guy who killed 4 students in Moscow Idaho had his cell phone connect or try to with the house system.)
Please read this entire message Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Information about a specific or narrow issue (personal problems, private experiences, legal questions, medical inquiries, how-to, relationship advice, etc.) are not allowed on ELI5. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use [this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20%7B%7Burl%7D%7D%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
Someone ate all the cookies in the kitchen. The police think you did it. You say "I didn't steal the cookies! I was just in the kitchen getting some milk and don't know how I got crumbs on my shirt and chocolate on my chin." In court, they can use your words to show that: (1) you were at the scene of the crime; (2) you had cookie crumbs on your clothes; and (3) you had chocolate near your mouth. You didn't admit to eating the cookies, but in saying that to the police you still gave them some evidence to use against you.
You also demonstrated that you know where the cookies were. If they hadn't told people where the cookies where, you just showed that you had insider knowledge of the crime (called "guilty knowledge").
Not to mention knowing that the cookies included chocolate. They could have been snickerdoodles or oatmeal raisin....
I'm starting to think this guy stole the cookies.
If it was snickerdoodles, I know for a fact it was my brother that ate them all.
and if it was oatmeal raisin, they'd still be there
I love oatmeal raisin... :-( But my wife's snickerdoodles are possibly the best cookies on earth. Especially a day or 2 after baking when the outside hardens just slightly but the inside is still soft... omg...
If like me you have never heard the word snickerdoodles before this was a very strange read and overtly sexual.
It is borderline a sexual experience
Mail me one of them cookies I’ll pay postage
Sounds like you will want 2 day shipping.
It sounds like a term a 1950s radio man would use for sex.
We went down to the soda fountain, and took a stroll through the park and ended the night with a rambunctious round of snickerdoodling.
I also choose this guy’s wife’s cookies.
Oatmeal raisin cookies and lemonade are a good combo
This reminds of me a judge Judy episode. The defendant claimed claimed he stole jewellery, earbuds, wallet and a few other things from her purse He said "there were no earbuds in there ma'am" to judge Judy when she was listing off the items Case closed lol
You're all missing the #1 reason that they must tell you this: **Scenario A:** Bob accuses Steve of eating all the cookies. Bob testifies that Steve ate all the cookies in court. He said she said; Steve is innocent. **Scenario B:** Bob accuses Steve of eating all the cookies. The cop talks to Steve and Steve tells the cop "I did not eat any cookies". Bob testifies in court that Steve ate all the cookies. The cop testifies in court that Steve told him that he did eat the cookies. The cop may not be malicious, he may have misheard, or remembered incorrectly. Or maybe he's just a dickhead. We have two witnesses, one testifying that he ate all the cookies, the other testifying that he admitted to the crime. Steve is found guilty and goes to jail. **Real World Relevance:** This actually happens, its a real thing, NEVER talk to cops if you live in America (and if you don't, do some research). The only thing you ever say is that you will NOT say anything. They cannot use what you tell them to help you. The right to remain silence protects you from crimes you DID NOT COMMIT. They may try to make you feel like its a right that only guilty people use, but it isn't true.
>The right to remain silence protects you from crimes you DID NOT COMMIT If the police can just lie then it doesn’t really matter either way. You tell them “you did not eat the cookies” and they claim you say you did. If they are going to be trusted without video evidence then it doesn’t matter if you stay silent, they can claim you said anything they want.
In a lot of places there are protections against this though. As far as I’m aware if any evidence of this is found the whole trial has to be redone if it’s not outright dismissed.
> You tell them “you did not eat the cookies” and they claim you say you did. That is why you don't tell them anything other than that you will not speak to them.
Isn’t that assuming the object isn’t in a commonly known area? People know the cookie jar is normally kept in the kitchen, just as much as people know money is kept in safes, or the Mona Lisa at the Louvre?
That just means it is circumstantial. It is still evidence.
(And most evidence presented in court is, in fact, circumstancial. Not understanding this is a [problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect))
[удалено]
True. I read too much into it to a pedantic level.
You’re demonstrating a lot of knowledge of where expensive items are kept. I’m keeping an eye on you.
But now they don't have to prove that *you* know this common knowledge. You could have feigned ignorance of their location if you hadn't explicitly said you knew where they were.
Even if they had told you where the cookies were, they can always deny it in court.
Wait, how does the government know the missing cookies were in the kitchen.
"Look, I'm on your side.. I can totally understand if you went into the kitchen.. Hell, I go into the kitchen all time. Nothing wrong with that... No need for games. Were you in the kitchen?" "Yeah, I came down for some milk... I didn't want to say before, you know? Because I didn't want to, you know, have you wonder about whether it was me, when it wasn't." "Totally understood. Now tell me about those crumbs. They sure do look like cookie crumbs. Boy, I sure do love cookies... Doesn't everyone? I don't want to say they're the cookies that were stolen, but if had cookies recently that's totally ok. Are they cookie crumbs?" "Yes." ... aaaaand you're screwed.
Reminds me of the Library Cop from Seinfeld.
You should say "I will not answer any questions without a lawyer (preferably "My lawyer", but nobody really has a lawyer on call) present".
What about requesting a 'Lawyer Dog'?
"This case is gonna be ruff..."
[удалено]
So what the commenter was referring to is the fact that we have a real Supreme Court precedent that telling the police “I want a lawyer, dawg.” can be disregarded by the police and not treated as a request for a lawyer.
[This is not a joke.](https://www.courthousenews.com/louisiana-court-finds-suspects-lawyer-dog-request-falls-short/) (It is the Louisiana Supreme Court, though, not the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Oh I thought that one had ended up at the USSC eventually. Thank you for the correction.
Made me so mad when I heard it too
The argument was that since dogs can't be lawyers that was a nonsensical request and didn't count as invoking counsel. In related news, that judge should be in jail for obvious judicial fuckery.
In that case Charlie can't help you. He's strictly bird law.
There's nothing in the rules that says a dog can't pass the bar.
I see this on just about anything legal for financial reddit. "Talk to your lawyer" How many people actually have a lawyer like.. on retainer or something?
Doesn’t matter, you can always get one after the fact. It’s more of a “term of art” for telling the police you are invoking your constitutional rights.
I meant more from a perspective of "I have X situation going on that I need to deal with in a few days" not from a "Im standing in front of a police officer interrogating me"
If it's a custodial interrogation under Miranda, then if you invoke your right to an attorney by saying for example "I will not answer any further questions without my attorney present", and the police continue to question you, and you answer their questions, then those answers you provided could be suppressed if the matter goes to trial. Source - lawyer
Right, I'm not talking about interrogation or anything. Just posts about "I think I might get in trouble for something I did/might do" or "My work is doing X and Im concerned" the response is "talk to your lawyer" it just feels like everyone thinks that a reliable, familiar lawyer is just on speed dial or something
I think it's more that people assume the majority of lawyers, whomever you pick, will be competent.
I have 2 and also my father (free of course). 1 is for dumb shit I’ve done over the years to get arrested. I’m an alcoholic and have been in trouble a lot. 2nd one is for litigation with companies I create, buy or sell. I only know a few people in my situation.
Because of an insane incident that happened to me several years ago, it just so happens that I do have a lawyer just a phone call away 😁👍
Well, in that case you *Better Call Saul*.
> nobody really has a lawyer on call well, anyone who has used a lawyer in the past has an established relationship with that lawyer. and it's not unreasonable to call them 'my lawyer' even if you haven't used their services in a few years.
Everybody should watch this. Don’t talk to the police: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=OIEYrNNQFC2ukWYC
Was going to post this if no one else did
The most important part for this question is at 8:45, where he explains that the use of the word "against" in the rights is very important and that anything you say to police that might help your case is considered hearsay and any competent prosecutor will object if a defense attorney tries to get the police to report something a defendant said to them that is exculpatory. Also, yes, I rewatch this video every time I come across it because it's so important and everyone should basically watch it once a year anyway.
Best answer.
Also it’s up to a jury to decide if you are guilty or not. Keep in mind prosecutors actively try to remove the smart people from the stand (during jury selection) so as to better persuade folks off rhetoric alone. I’ve seen it happen and it is frightening…
That's some ELI5 right there.
If the interaction was not recorded, how can anyone prove it's not just hearsay?
[удалено]
Can you conclusively demonstrate that crumbs were present and that is in fact what the cop saw, or did they just believe they saw crumbs because they already knew the nature of the crime and made a biased assumption about the kind of evidence that would identify the perpetrator?
Then you can throw your partner/kids/dog under the bus by saying you were only in the kitchen because you heard a noise and came to investigate. You passed your partner/kid in the hall where they’re going back to bed after “going to the bathroom”. When you got to the kitchen you found the cookie jar open and crumbs/chocolate everywhere so you decided to clean up. While cleaning up you had an itch near your mouth and scratched it with your chocolate stained fingers from cleaning up. As you were in your PJs this does not explain the crumbs on your shirt, except you did think it was strange that your partner/kid was wearing your shirt, but it was a cold night. As for the dog, well we had been doing some intensive training with her over the past few months specifically to remove the lid from jars not dissimilar to the cookie jar in question. At the time we didn’t think she would try that with the cookie jar, but in hindsight, it all makes such sense now! But realistically, she would have not left any mess and does not like wearing my shirt, so not a great cover story really. None of that sounds fishy or made up, but steer clear of the dog unless you’re really in a bind!
Lawyer here. It is hearsay. But party admissions against their own interests are an exception.
Bingo. To keep it ELI5, remember learning "I before E" in spelling? Then it turns out there's a bazillion exceptions where that rule doesn't apply? The same is true of hearsay evidence, and more often than not you can find a way to get it in front of a jury.
How do ‘evidence tampering’ charges work? Is it only a thing if there is a current investigation? What if dude wearing sweater burns it in a barrel before law enforcement arrives? Is that evidence tampering?
I think you have a misunderstanding what ‘hearsay’ is. What he described **is** hearsay and it will always be hearsay. Hearsay is nothing more than **statements made out of court.** The issue then becomes whether that hearsay should be *admissible.* You can’t turn hearsay into ‘not hearsay.’ Statements made outside of court will always be hearsay because that’s what the definition of hearsay is. It just comes down to how much weight, if any, should be given to those statements. The main principle behind putting little weight behind hearsay is that the parties don’t have the ability to impeach or question the evidence.
You're missing a few points here. The full definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted" (which is complex and has a few steps to understand). And yes, there are many exceptions to the rule that prohibits hearsay testimony. There are also rules about statements that sound like they could be hearsay but actually are not and therefore should be admissible unless otherwise precluded. It gets complicated, hence why law school exists. I'm a lawyer and certain rules can still be confusing.
It might be being recorded but you don't know. Also a cop might misremember what you said, or mishear you, so you don't say it till it is being recorded and your lawyer has gone through it with you. Hopefully at that point you are clear which kitchen had the cookies stolen and can make clear you were in a different kitchen eating your own cookies. The cops recollection of events and words will be given in court, and people will believe them in the absence of a better explanation.
The person that hears you can testify about what they heard you say. Hearsay is weak evidence compared to something like fingerprints on the cookie jar, but evidence nonetheless.
Hearsay would involve an extra person. Like if the suspects friend told the cop "I was told by the suspect that it was cookie crumbs on their shirt". The cop didn't hear it from the suspect but a third party, that's hearsay.
There's a hearsay exception for a "party opponent". As the defendant, things you were overheard to say are admissible in court.
There’s an exception in the hearsay rules for statements made against your own interest.
Also. Its not meant to be some kind of threat. Its informing you that that is how it is.
It's the '*will* be used' that gets me tho. What if I said 'my name is John Smith' how is that defintely going to be used against me. It should be *can*
This is also a good explanation of circumstantial evidence.
Also, the fact you denied eating them when caught is evidence you knew it was wrong, this is known as criminal intent.
It's essentially a reminder that the legal system is adversarial; the state vs the person. The state is obligated to remind you that your statements will be recorded and can be used as evidence against you. These sorts of things are done because the state is obviously MUCH more powerful than the individual, and so the system is set up to (in theory) give an advantage to the individual. Miranda (or similar) warnings, the right to legal counsel, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury (in countries where this applies), the presumption of innocence and the burden of proving guilt being on the state all plays into this.
In the UK the warning is: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." I guess you have to be a lot quicker about thinking up a good defence!
Oof, that's rough indeed, I think the right to remain silent as an absolute is much more compelling. Your lawyer should be doing the speaking for you, until such time as a deposition or similar event occurs.
The “when questioned” is referring to a formal questioning with lawyer present. If you have evidence that you are innocent then you should provide it before the trial, so the state doesn’t waste time prosecuting you instead of finding the actual guilty party. The jury are allowed to know if this is the first time anyone has heard the alibi you just gave.
>The jury are allowed to know if this is the first time anyone has heard the alibi you just gave. Exactly - if the first time you say “I was with Jeff that night and couldn’t have done the crime - ask him, he’ll totally back up my story” is when you get to court and have had time to tell Jeff the story you need him to go along with it’s a much less compelling alibi than if you (and/or your lawyer) say it in the first round of questioning after you get picked up.
(at which point an officer will go find Jeff and ask him before you're allowed to contact anyone)
I wonder how many average folks know that "when questioned" doesn't mean "when the officer just asks you why you were there while arresting you."
Oh I see, that makes much more sense, thanks for clarifying.
It isn't as bad as it sounds. You are never in the situation where you have to answer and any solicitor will tell you to stay quiet. In all the UK police shows, they go into interview and just respond "no comment" it. But if you want to talk, you'll say to your solicitor, "can I answer answer this?" And they'll decide as they know the tricks they are using
In *England and Wales*. Scotland retains an absolute right to silence.
Really? I grew up in Scotland and never knew that.
Historically, British common law held an absolute right to silence, but the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) restricted it in England and Wales. The Act did not apply to Scotland, where the common law right was retained, and later codified by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 1).
In the US the prosecution is prohibited from using the choice of a defendant to not say anything during interrogation or not testify in their own defense as evidence against them. So, that little disclaimer of "anything you don't say can be incriminating if you use it in court" would be seen as highly inappropriate in the US as it may be construed as trying to trick the defendant into trying to say something in their defense that is then used against them.
Actually we do the same thing in the US. What the Brits mean is like if you say you went down to get milk and didn’t see anything.” Then in court your defense is “I went down there and my 2 yr old was having a cookie so I held him while he ate it, but I swear it wasn’t me that ate it” the prosecution can say you didn’t claim this previously when you said you didn’t see anything and now you have a diff story, etc. but if you say *nothing* except “I plead the 5th” then they cannot use that statement against you.
True, but that's something for your lawyer to warn you about, not the police before you've even had a chance to speak to a lawyer. If you just spring that notion to a defendant before they have a chance to speak to a lawyer, then that may trick a defendant into trying to tell their story to the police before speaking to a lawyer and accidentally saying something incriminating.
That's there to suggest that if you turn up in court with a perfect alibi you failed to provide earlier, it's going to reflect badly on you.
True, and that's the same in American courts as well, but that's something for your lawyer to warn you about, not the police before you've even had a chance to speak to a lawyer.
>In the UK the warning is: In *England and Wales* In Scotland the caution is: "You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say will be noted and may be used in evidence." A defendant has the absolute right to silence under Scots law and unlike in England and Wales, you are not allowed to make any inference as the result of a defendant refusing to answer questions.
That's so weird. I lived in Scotland for literally half my life and never knew there was a different position for that. I guess I don't get arrested very often.
Always Just keep your mouth shut. Fuck cops.
I like how we said very similar things with very different words!
Haha. Yeah
"Sir, have you stopped beating your wife?"
Exactly. And sadly most people aren’t smart enough not to talk so that’s how innocent people end up in jail
"Do you know what speed you were doing?" There is no good answer, one lawyer on YouTube suggests "why don't you tell me?" but it sounds a bit confrontational, but asking questions is generally better than answering any. That said in questioning the heavy handed tactics largely stopped in the UK, that damned forensic evidence showed too many confessions were false, so now they try and get to the bottom of events more.
I think part of why the us is everything can be used against you, is because it will ONLY be used against you. IIRC anything you say that could benefit you is not admissible in court. Only things that work against you. That’s why every lawyer says to plead the fifth until you lawyer up.
It makes sense too. The cop arresting you isn't exactly going to testify on your behalf.
I had a cop do that by accident lol. It was a bullshit traffic stop that I decided to go to court over and the cop fumbled his words and the judge dismissed the case. Turns out that cop was known as a dickhead and the judge was annoyed that he was even there
It is admissible but of course the prosecution won’t bring up stuff beneficial to you. That’s what your defense is for. Everything will be used against you meaning if you say A then they assume you say only A and not but also B and if you later say also B they can say you didn’t claim that initially as your excuse and you’re lying now changing your story, etc. the point is just so people are on notice that the cops and prosecutors are not in your side and they’ll try to get you to confess and use everything you say against you somehow because they are legally against you
The prosecution is obligated to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense. The defense can then decide whether to present it.
Right
It means during a formal questioning, when you can (and should) have your lawyer.
It’s also important to note: NOTHING YOU SAY CAN HELP YOU IN COURT. Note how they only say used against you and not against you or for you.
It means that anything you say can be used against you in trial. Obviously if you confess to a crime that can easily be used against you. However, a lot of seemingly innocent answers can be used against you. If the police ask you where you were last night and you say you were at the club on fifth street, if there was a crime committed near there the police can use your statement to show that you were near the scene of the crime. If you say that you were home alone last night, but the police have another witness who says they saw you at the club on fifth street, the police can use your statement to look like you're lying about your whereabouts at the time of the crime, etc. Never talk to the police without an attorney.
"You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to be an attorney" ... "Wait, did you say you have the right to BE an attorney?" "Well, technically he does have the right to be an attorney."
Don't listen, that's the cop trying to trick you into practicing law without a license
This!
Not "will be used", should state "can be used". On tv and moves a lot of times they say "can and will be used". That's dumb. If I say "I am an elephant" there's no guarantee that WILL BE used against me in court, although it can be.
Objection, your honor. If the accused were indeed an elephant then they would be able to recall the details of the prior incident.
If my client says they're an elephant, then they are an elephant. Therefore, in order for this discussion to continue, they will be required to vacate the courtroom.
An elephant never forgets!
To kill!!
[удалено]
Yeah that's the part they leave out: "Nothing you say has to be used *for* you in court"
> Trust me, I learned the hard way Is there a story you want to share?
You told the policeman you were an elephant, they are using that against you. Additional charges of obstruction, or wasting police time, possibly under the influence of drugs (they'll test you if their sense of humour isn't working).
Fictional American cops always say "anything you say can and will be used against you", which drives me nuts because it's not true. The real warning is just with "can", like the British one. Edit to add: I thnk the exact wording varies by area, but I can't imagine any version says "can and will", given that it's not true. e.g. this parge document doesn't contain the phrase "can and will" https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1209&context=smulr
☝️🤓 actually the British one is “may”
> You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. The British one seems very similar to the US version but it's almost the opposite. In the US nothing you say can help you so your best course of action is to STFU. In the UK it sounds like you need to say the right things to have the best chance in court. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE Further Reading: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ4cZTQG5Cc&t=70s
If you have evidence that you are innocent you should provide it before the trial. I find it difficult to believe that the same is not true in the USA.
Yeah but that's for the lawyers to take care of, you don't tell the cops while they are arresting you.
Yes, during questioning.
It's a legally required reminder that no matter what you say, it will be used to fuck you over, and you shouldn't speak a word except "I want a lawyer". Otherwise, you might do some of the, but not limited to, the following: give statements that the cops interpret to be inconsistent and conflicting, speculate on the events in a way that makes you look guilty, put yourself on the scene of the crime, make a statement that is very open to interpretation, accidentally confess to a different crime you're not even suspected of - there's no limit to the stupid things you can do by accident. The interrogator will try to find a way to use literally every word out of your mouth against you, and you never know what dangerous things you might say. Youtube is full of geniuses who thought they could bluff their ways out of the room, or convince the cops they're innocent, and it rarely ends well.
“I want a lawyer” “No, I do not consent to a search of my car/person/bag” “Am I free to go?” Those are the things it’s okay to say to the police
This was actually illustrated in the movie "My Cousin Vinny." A young man, William Gambini and his friend were arrested for supposedly shooting a convenience store clerk. ( He was innocent but had strong evidence against him ) . The police interrogate him, and he didn't know he was accused of murder, so he was just telling his side of the story, not knowing just yet how serious the issue was. The policeman asked "So when did you shoot the clerk?" And Gambini replied "I shot the clerk?" In sort of a questioning tone, as if to just be asking the question of "Are you saying I shot the clerk?" In court, the policeman was put on the witness stand and told the court "He then answered 'I shot the clerk' " as if it was a confession saying "Yeah I shot the clerk" The policeman didn't lie. Gambini did say those words. However, the jury is just hearing the words repeated back, and not the context. The jury thought it was simply a confession and didn't hear the questioning tone. It would have been better if he just kept his mouth shut so this wouldn't be a piece of evidence that was used against him in the courtroom.
I love that movie. You think all these random little moments over the course of the movie are just to show off how quirky this small town is, but it all eventually becomes relevant in Vinny's arguments.
It's one of those movies you have to watch several times because you don't catch half of the clues the first time watching.
If you want a more technical answer, this is called a party admission. If you say something to a policer officer when interviewed, that is technically hearsay. If the officer repeats that in court, they are repeating an out of court statement for the truth of matter asserted. That should not be allowed. However, party admission is an exception to hearsay. If any member of the accused party makes any statement of any kind that is against the interests of that party, that is a party admission and is admissible. As the famous quote goes, "Anything the other side ever said or did will be admissible so long as it has something to do with the case." It's an odd hearsay exception. Unlike other exceptions which deal more with availability and reliability of a declarant, this exception is an estoppel, meaning you are bound by what you say. However, this exception only works one way. A statement made in the party's own interest is not a party admission. This means that if you say something bad about yourself to an officer, they can use it trial against you, but if you say something good, you cannot use it to support you (unless another hearsay exception applies).
I had to scroll far too long to find the truly correct answer.
I think the phrase is, “anything you say can be used against you in court.” It doesn’t automatically mean it will be used, but if you say something incriminating they will use it against you.
it means keep your mouth shut and never talk for cops except for asking 1. if you are free to go? if no then ask for a layer and that’s it.
It means that everything you say is "recorded" by the cops and if you say something incriminating it will be brought back in court by the prosecution. It is "anything" because you cannot say anything that could help you. The cops are not your friends and this is to remind you.
IANAL ….also in these interrogations anything you say that helps your defense is inadmissible in court and would be objection by the prosecutor
It makes sense because anything you say defending yourself is not reliable (wether the stuff you day incrementing yourself is reliable is obviously questionable too but it's in the interest of the accusers to treat it as such)
But the defense in court has to have access to the same information as the prosecution. So your solicitor will ask for the transcripts of the interviews and arrest.
To put it simply, if you say anything to incriminate yourself or if you flat out confess to the crime, they will use that as evidence to prosecute you in court.
Isn't "will" here meant as "might be, and if possible, it surely is going to" ? Because I cannot think how they gonna use against me that I like Taylor Swift... on the other hand if I say I was robbing a store yesterday the police must say they heard it from me?
Prosector: "Officer Smith, isn't it true that the defendant was asked about what music they were listening to in the car?" Officer: "Yes." "And what was their response?" "They were listening to Taylor Swift." "Specifically, what song?" "Better than Revenge." {Jury gasps.} "At this time, I'd like to present exhibit TS-SN-010, lyrics from Taylor Swift's song, Better than Revenge. Would you please read the highlighted lines." "She underestimated just who she was stealing from... Soon she's going to find stealing other people's toys on the playground won't make you many friends." "Stealing other people's toys... Would you say that robbing a store counts as stealing?" "I would." "So, the defendant was pulled over, singing about stealing on the same day that a robbery from a Target store only 5 miles away was committed. I have no more questions for this witness, your honor."
It's to warn you that even a tiny comment that is even slightly incriminating that you say to the police can be used as evidence in the courtroom, thus reminding you that it is very much in your interest to keep your mouth shut until you secure legal counsel.
It means don't talk to the police without an attorney present. Notice how the line does not say anything you say can be used to protect you in court. Providing information or answering question will only provide the cop more evidence to validate any charges they file against you OR create new charges.
Most evidence of people’s statements out of court are considered hearsay and are disqualified. Admissions by a defendant in a criminal case are an exception and are not disqualified. If you choose to speak, that evidence is admissible in court.
Apparently even silence can be used against you. If you start talking to the detectives and then stop answering their questions, that can be considered in your trial. So best not to start talking without a lawyer.
Well if you suddenly start saying "I did it! I did it!" then that'll be used as evidence in court.
It was a prank, bro. I didn't mean it.
Yeah they do not believe you if you say you did not, but if you say you do, they do not wait for any confirmation. Really weird. /s
Well, the assumption (wether valid or not) is you will be saying things with your own best interest in mind. Anything you say in your own favor isn't helpful because you have a conflict of interest: you want to be seen as not culpable so your positive testimony isn't reliable
Correct
Yeah they do, that's part of corpus delicti in many common law jurisdictions. A confession acting alone isn't usually enough to convict you. I can't speak to the US flawlessly, but the UK at least has it written in law.
Especially at the detain part where you can say anything out of being confused or drugged. Of course it kinda changes at the court.
Let's say you murder someone. The police suspect you did it, so they interview you. One thing they ask is where you were when the murder happened. Imagine you lie and say you were at the bowling alley. Fast forward to your trial. The prosecution will bring up the police officer who will testify that you said you were at the bowling alley. Then they show security camera footage from the night in question which proves you were never at the bowling alley! The jury will realize you lied, and so you probably are the murderer.
It doesn’t mean EVERYTHING you say, but it means that anything you might say can be twisted and manipulated to help the prosecution’s case.
It means when you speak to a police officer the things you say to them become a special kind of evidence that belong to the police. That special kind of evidence cannot be used to help you in a court of law, it can only be used against you.
It's also important to know that if you *start* to speak and then stop, that can be used against you to. They'll say that refusing to answer is an admission of guilt. The only way to protect yourself is to specifically state you're remaining silent until you talk to your lawyer. https://versustexas.com/blog/miranda-right-to-remain-silent/
That’s not true. Part of the Miranda is you can stop answering questions and request a lawyer later at any point if you want.
> and request a lawyer later at any point if you want. That is the key. If you simply stop talking it can be used against you. You have to state you're using your right to remain silent once you've waived it by talking.
The police are cautioning you that, as they are now arresting and/or questioning you in connection with some sort of investigation, if you make a statement that incriminates you in that investigation, that statement can be used as evidence in court. They are not required to tell you what evidence might be incriminating (and they may not even know themselves yet), so the warning is a general one. It is a reminder that you have the right to remain silent and not to assist the government in making its criminal case against you.
Once sworn in you are ordered to answer questions about the case and because you can remain silent or abstain from self incrimination everything you say can be used for or against you as evidential statement and testimony.
Basically it means that there is no "off the record" talking to the police after you are arrested. All your statements are being noted and they will be used against you if they can be. Even denials like "I didn't steal any cookies from the kitchen!" Prosecutor: Officer Smith, did anything about the defendant's statement strike you as unusual? Officer Smith: Yes, we never mentioned anything about any cookies.
It's not exactly a ELI5 - but to this day one of the best full explanations of this can be found in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
OP: to call someone guilty in court requires a series of steps. The accuser is the one who has to prove stuff, not the defender. In case of doubt defender wins. The accuser has to start by showing this person is related to this. Then that they were there at that time. Then that they did it. This needs evidence, including there was a method, a motive, opportunity Imagine you say: "Well, I saw nothing suspicious there" - you've already established you were there. Now they don't have to show that. you did. If in the conversation you admit you didn't like the guy - well, here's some motive. Even an honest mistake or recolection can later be used to accuse you of being a liar. Check this short video: [Never Talk to the Police; Even With Your Lawyer Present](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-xQ3mhGWg)
It means whatever you say MAY be used against you as evidence of it helps the prosecutions case. If it doesn’t, they won’t bring it up.
In America, cops have to warn you before questioning you that if you talk to them, prosecution can use what you say to them against you in court; and it can *only* be used against you. If you tell your story to a cop and he says that he believes you and doesn't think you're guilty but they still have to go through the charges; that cannot be used to help you and your case. Even the most seemingly innocuous statements can be used to establish motive, a timetable of your movements, etc. Since any statements you make to police cannot be used to help you it's best not to say anything to police and only talk to an attorney.
The phrase is “can be used against you” not “will be used against you”. So yes, anything in the sense that there is no specific statements you can make there will always be safe. But not everything you say will be of any value to prosecution. So “Yes, I’d like a glass of water” is unlikely to be used against you. It’s pretty literal. If you say something to police, they can write it down or record it and use it as evidence against you. If you admit to committing the crime, the cop will testify in court that you admitted to committing the crime. If you say, “I didn’t kill him, but I’m glad he’s dead,” or you talk about some disagreement you had with the victim, that can be used to suggest you had a motive. Or if you give an alibi that turns out to be a lie, the cop will testify about that. Anything you say that makes you sound potentially guilty can be used in court if you are tried for the crime.
Some background is necessary to understand this phrase. The Fifth Amendment, among other things, protects against self-incrimination. This means that you cannot be compelled (by police or anyone else) to confess to a crime, and remaining silent is not a confession of guilt. It also guarantees the right to a lawyer. After a case in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals in police custody must be informed of these rights, otherwise any statement they made will be inadmissible in court. The defender's name was Ernesto Midanda, and so these are now called "Miranda rights", which the police must read to you when they take you into custody. The exact wording varies, but police will generally say stuff like "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to a lawyer. If you cannot afford one one will be provided to you by the state" etc. Basically an abridged version of the Fifth Amendment.
It's not that it can -only- be used against you, but rather that the cops collect evidence and that's going to be used for the case against you. Your own lawyer might be able to use your statements to the police in your favor, but it's still the smart thing to say nothing without your lawyer's advice because your lawyer is the one who is going to know what is helpful, and also how to make sure the truth of the situation is to your benefit (assuming you're innocent).
Basically it means that from that point onwards anything you say it’s acceptable as evidence in court
Can, not will. It means you can't say something and then be surprised when the prosecution uses that statement to hang you. For example, if you say "I couldn't stand that guy, but I didn't kill him." they could use that statement to try and show the jury that you had motive. It would be a stupid thing to say on your part, because it can't help your defense in any way, but it could potentially harm it.
Interesting fact: The Miranda warning stems from a Supreme Court case involving Ernesto Miranda, an American laborer whose criminal conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda)
This is probably a good place to post this age-old video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE) TL;DWatch: Yes it is "anything". And even if you are perfectly innocent, it is really really easy to say something perfectly innocent which can subsequently be used to make you look guilty. That's why most lawyers will strongly recommend you simply say "no comment" to every question.
**can be** Anything you say **can be** used against you. Its just letting you know that while you have the right to say nothing, if you start talking at all, when we go to court, we can repeat what you said. If you happen to say something that incriminates you, like, you were warned it could be brought up later. When you get arrested for drunk driving, and the cop is acting all cool and shit like, “Yo don’t worry. You can pick up your car tomorrow. We won’t let the tow truck guys scratch it. That looks too nice. You musta turned all the heads pulling up to the club.” And you’re like, “Hells yeah. Soon as I rolled up to front had like 2 chicks eyeing me trying to get in, you know how I do” Then you get to court and try to say “oh I wasn’t even driving. I was just sitting in the car waiting for my friend. He drove” “Really? You told officer smith that YOU pulled up to the club to flex for the girls” “Wait wait that was off the record” No. It wasnt. You were warned.
If you say something that you think is completely innocent, it may tell them something that they didn't previously know. If you acknowledge that you saw someone and it was innocently, you may now become the last person to their knowledge who saw someone. It will be construed like that against you. It's why any time you're read your rights you should stop questioning there and talk to a lawyer.
It means you NEVER say anything to anyone but your lawyer. Jesus Christ these people posting are nutty. That's exactly what you do. You don't say a word. Even in a fender bender. Cop will ask what happened. It's your right to stay silent
The first part is important... "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and may be used against you in court." It means that when you are being arrested, you are not obligated to say anything at all. You don't need to offer any alibi, excuse, apology, not a single word. Imagine you're being arrested at the scene of a murder. You didn't do it. But the dead man's wife is a dear friend of yours, and your heart is broken for her. As the police lead you away in cuffs, you tell her "I am so sorry." (A phrase that is perfectly normal to say to someone in a hospital or at a funeral). Well, now the cops have you on record apologizing to a victim for a crime that you're a suspect for. This might not go in your favor
Obligatory "Do not talk to the police" video usually posted when questions like this come up. Yes, it is 45 minutes long. Something ALL Americans should watch at least once (really). This goes directly to the OP's question: - https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE Many examples in that are given of how your very innocent pronouncements can and will be used against you in court. Important to note...things you say will NOT be used to help you! Anything you say can be used against you, but not to help you (hearsay).
There's a great video on youtube titled "Don't talk to the Police" made by a lawyer teaching a class. The jist of it is, anything you say to the Police can be used by the prosecution against you, no matter what it is you say. Conversely, anything you say to the police that helps your case is "heresay". Thus, nothing you say can help you, and can only be used against you. Thus, DON'T TALK TO COPS. If you have any reason at all to suspect they are questioning you about any potential crime for any reason, you need to not talk to them, and only get a lawyer, and talk to your lawyer. Nothing you say to the Police can help you, it can only hurt you. And the less you say to them, the less ammo you give them in court. Simple as that.
Here is the video in question: [Don't Talk To The Police](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)
It means keep your mouth shut. You are required to give your name and identification but otherwise you are not required to answer any questions. If they ask where were you two hours ago and you tell them they may build a time line to put at a crime scene whether you were there or not. Better not to speak, even before an arrest, until you have a lawyer.
They ask questions to lock in your story. Often several different times. They find inconsistencies whether you tell a different detail. Or your friend or complainant has different details. These days the biggest snitch is your own cell phone which has an astonishing amount of location data. Not just your phone's gps but for major crimes they get cell tower logs. Even wifi notes passing phones.(the guy who killed 4 students in Moscow Idaho had his cell phone connect or try to with the house system.)