Timeline for Failing to mention when questioned something you later rely on in court
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24 at 10:29 | comment | added | rhellen | It's worth noting that the use of this clause only applies to formal "interviews under caution" In any other setting, you have an absolute right to not answer questions. Also, the police are restricted on what they can say in an interview (no lies, trick questions, or threats). | |
| Nov 10, 2017 at 10:31 | comment | added | David Schwartz | Just to point out something very important -- you should never, ever give the police an alibi in circumstances like that. It can get you wrongfully convicted. There are better ways to use an alibi than that. As just one way this can go horribly wrong (and did!) imagine if a friend of yours was quite confident he saw you near the scene of the crime, but of course, was mistaken. Now your whole trial will be about "Why would an innocent person lie about his whereabouts?". It is absolute foolishness to disclose an alibi to police under those circumstances! | |
| Aug 18, 2017 at 10:36 | comment | added | user | You make it sound like it's to help the defendant, but I don't think that's true. In the past the judge would simply have instructed the jury that they should not infer anything from his silence, as he has a right not to say anything to the police and it doesn't imply anything. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:48 | comment | added | jez | Any thoughts on the possibilities for abuse opened up by this clause, by unscrupulous investigators/prosecutors? | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:37 | comment | added | jez | @Dawn thanks; I see that interpreting selective silence, as in your example, might make some sense. I'm just rather alarmed at the idea that a blanket "i know that if I speak a prosecution lawyer might twist my every turn of phrase in ways I can't even anticipate" silence could also harm one's defense. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:32 | comment | added | user3851 | @NateEldredge The prosecution can't even mention the silence. If mentioned, the jury is instructed to not take it into account. And, regardless what actually goes on in a juror's head, the explicit, statutory difference between what is allowed in the UK vs the US surprises me in this case. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:31 | comment | added | user3851 | @jez Even in the US, negative inferences can be drawn from silence if the conversation with police is happening in a non-custodial, non-interrogation setting (that was the issue in Salinas v. Texas). The defendant voluntarily reported a crime to police, they asked a question that would have revealed his involvement, which he declined to answer, and then he proceeded to answer other questions. He was free to leave at any time. That silence is able to be used against the defendant. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:31 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | @Dawn: But even if the prosecution can't make those inferences, it's not so easy to prevent the jury from making those inferences on its own. | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | jez | That's right, and I must say I do find it ominous, and threatening, that silence can ever be "interpreted". | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 16:23 | comment | added | user3851 | Interesting. That is opposite to how the law works in the US. The prosecution cannot make negative inferences from a defendants silence if the defendant explicitly exercises their 5th Amendment right. From Salinas v. Texas: "...due process prohibits prosecutors from pointing to the fact that a defendant was silent...". | |
| Feb 10, 2016 at 15:48 | history | answered | Nate Eldredge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |