I know this is off topic to the direct question at hand but his case, assuming the talking points found on this page I found[1] are true, is scary. No evidence whatsoever, including fingernail DNA that excluded him? What the actual fuck.
>> Mr. Jennings voluntarily submitted to hours of police interviews and interrogations and a polygraph test without objection or legal representation.
>> The evidence presented against Jennings at trial... statements and snippets of statements taken from the hours of police interrogation of Jennings which prosecutors said pointed to his guilt
It bears reminding, voluntarily speaking to police is NEVER, EVER... EVER!!! the right thing to do. You try to help, but all it does is set you up as a scapegoat. I'll do some more searching to find the answer, but all I can think of now is what kind of judge or jury could have possibly convicted this... unless he accepted a plea.
>> prosecutors called forensic behavioral consultant, Mark Safarik, who testified that it was his opinion that the crime was a sexually motivated encounter which went bad; this, based on the fact that when found, O’Keefe’s tube top was partially pulled down.
A "partially pulled down" tube top means sexual assault?! It couldn't be that the attacker simply was grabbing at the victim?
>> because a security guard was on duty, it was highly unlikely that any other offender would commit such a crime
How does one know whether a particular area is patrolled by security? Does this forensic moron, and the judge listening to this testimony, really think this is relevant?
These kinds of horror stories come up again, and again, and again in the US. Just another reason I haven't crossed the border to that country in over a decade.
A while back I made an easy-to-remember Bitly link for a YouTube video of a law school lecture featuring a law professor and his criminal investigator (police-side) friend that totally backs up your point.
Thanks I enjoyed watching that. I wonder how applicable it is in the UK. You have a right to remain silent, but I believe your silence may be used against you under certain circumstances.
Remaining silent can certainly make you appear as though you have something to hide, but at least you're not saying anything that can be used against you. By talking, everything you say is a potential trap, especially if unrelated statements get weaved together out of context. Even if you are telling nothing but the truth, once you've given the same story over and over again over a period of hours of interrogation, most people are bound to let fatigue and frustration result in misspeaking at least once. You say something differently about the situation once, and suddenly everything you've said must certainly be a web of lies, right?
Interrogators - at least in the US - are notorious for overstepping what any person would consider appropriate. Repeatedly hounding someone until they start to admit committing a crime just to get the interrogation to stop, is despicable.
Can a plea conviction be appealed / overturned? I admit my law knowledge is from watching Law & Order. :-). But "Lawyer-up" is the take home from that show (and by that token kids - ask for a lawyer not your mum or dad. you don't need a cuddle you need legal help)
Yes, in California a judge can allow a plea to be withdrawn if it "serves the interests of justice." This is the same mechanism used to expunge someone's record after, e.g., completing probation. They are required to set aside guilty pleas if they learn that the party isn't guilty—even if the defendant doesn't ask them to.
This is dangerous advice. Chances are you cannot "handle your business" to such an extent that you can out-maneuver professionals with years of training whose sole aim is to put you behind bars.
I'm not qualified to say whether this is good advice from an individual's perspective, but from the point of view of a society that would like justice to be done this is just extraordinarily screwed up. How are the police going to solve crimes if nobody will talk to them?
I mean, victims gotta talk to the police right, otherwise there are no crime reports? What about witnesses? When do you stop being a witness and start being a suspect? Is that when you stop talking? Or do you let the theoretical rapist walk free because after all you don't talk to the cops?
It's a completely unsustainable position, and leads to a worse society in pretty much every measurable way.
So I'm supposed to take on the immense risk myself and urge others to do the same? All just for the sake of a nebulous "benefit to society" that the police themselves are not willing to take steps toward? No thank you.
What's the best way to social engineer in this situation. "I'm not talking to you" without agitating them? Just say, "wait until I get my lawyer and we'll talk?" What do you guys think?
if you choose to invoke the right to remain silent, don't say anything until you're in the interrogation room, then demand your lawyer, and go back to being silent until they let you call him, or he arrives.
I see your point, but I want to also social engineer the situation so the officers feel like I want to help them and I am on their side, while also giving no information.
this might be a misunderstanding on the purpose of the Police. If you are being interrogated, they are trying to put you in jail until enough reason is given to not. They are allowed to outright lie to make this happen, so long as you divulge something to them.
This is one of the inherent problems in the "right to remain silent". you are correct in identifying that silence (especially in contracts) is an acceptance in dishonor. Furthermore, by going silent, you are instead accepting a limited subset of rights, in lieu your inherent rights guaranteed by your constitution (in North America anyway), which includes waiving your rights guaranteed by the 4th amendment and 5th amendment.
by saying "yes" to the question "do you understand these rights and they have been read to you", you have given up your right to remain silent, which means you've now waived your original rights, as well as the new rights they read you.
Knowing your rights usually leads to a harder/harsher grilling by the police, as they attempt to test you on them. Not knowing your rights leads to an attempt to railroad you through the system.
The safest path has been "Duress" as implied by Uniform Commercial Code Article 1 Section 308. Inform the police in every encounter (i.e. every time they enter or leave the room) that you are acting under duress, and you intend to cooperate fully. Answer all their questions without hesitation, maybe adding a "please don't hurt me" to the end. If you're given anything to sign, your name now becomes "Without Prejudice" or "Under Duress", so sign it that way. Print that name underneath as well. Once released from police custody, you have 72 hours to inform them that your signature was given under duress, and that you're revoking those agreements/documents signed.
the fact that people are being discouraged to handle their affairs is alarming.
your right to remain silent will still be used against you. And most people are too ignorant to realize when they've given up that right (as soon as you open your mouth and speech comes out).
if you're truly incapable of learning how to handle your affairs, do not talk to police.
>> Mr. Jennings voluntarily submitted to hours of police interviews and interrogations and a polygraph test without objection or legal representation.
>> The evidence presented against Jennings at trial... statements and snippets of statements taken from the hours of police interrogation of Jennings which prosecutors said pointed to his guilt
It bears reminding, voluntarily speaking to police is NEVER, EVER... EVER!!! the right thing to do. You try to help, but all it does is set you up as a scapegoat. I'll do some more searching to find the answer, but all I can think of now is what kind of judge or jury could have possibly convicted this... unless he accepted a plea.
>> prosecutors called forensic behavioral consultant, Mark Safarik, who testified that it was his opinion that the crime was a sexually motivated encounter which went bad; this, based on the fact that when found, O’Keefe’s tube top was partially pulled down.
A "partially pulled down" tube top means sexual assault?! It couldn't be that the attacker simply was grabbing at the victim?
>> because a security guard was on duty, it was highly unlikely that any other offender would commit such a crime
How does one know whether a particular area is patrolled by security? Does this forensic moron, and the judge listening to this testimony, really think this is relevant?
These kinds of horror stories come up again, and again, and again in the US. Just another reason I haven't crossed the border to that country in over a decade.
[1] http://justiceforray.webs.com/