To a lesser extent this happened to General Flynn when he was charged, however in his case the Feds made a rare show of pseudo-apology and abandoned the case.
Richard Jewell is a famous example of naive talking (not even lying) being used against him - there's a Clint Eastwood releasing this weekend about his case.
Regardless of which political side you prefer, these tools of circular prosecution have and will be used against anyone when anything ranging from a media frenzy, to executive pressure, to a couple ambitious agents deems it warranted.
Not yet, they haven't abandoned the case yet. It was put on hold when Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer showed that FBI manipulated his 302 transcripts and the FBI replied that they would like to put the case on hold until the IG report is out.
In General Flynn’s case, his lawyer’s latest submission (3 weeks ago) also shows that he didn’t actually lie. FBI attorney Lisa Page edited his testimony and overnight, the testimony went from one thing to something he never said. Then FBI used that manipulates testimony to make him plead guilty because he had to sell his house and he went bankrupt from his past lawyer fees. The judge will most likely throw his case out now after this IG report is out which shows gross misconduct from FBI.
Lisa Page manipulated Flynn's transcripts.
Kevin Clinesmith altered CIA's email to say "Carter Page was not a CIA source" when the opposite was true.
I believe Clinesmith was referred for criminal case by the IG but I don't know if anything happened to Lisa Page.
Hold up, "boisterous storytelling"? Is that the new "boys will be boys"? You make it sound as if Stone was just caught lying about his weight.
Roger Stone was convicted of Witness Tampering, Obstruction of Justice, and lying about the actual subject of the investigation.
This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty.
But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible. The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people haven't seen it.
1. Police and prosecutor will pull your records anyway, they generally look at spouse and people close to you first regardless of your innocence. 2. If this is the only evidence they have on your guilt, then you're likely to win on appeal if the jury is insane enough to find your guilt based on zero evidence.
I also imagine it’s very difficult to make a decision like this when distraught. I‘m pretty sure I’d (perhaps foolishly) only be thinking about finding my spouse, not the legal implications for myself. It seems like this would be the case for the vast majority of people in that situation.
I'm not saying be that guy at the DUI checkpoint screaming about being a sovereign citizen (Although I do have a fair bit of sympathy for them) but you can talk yourself into way more trouble than you're going to be able to talk yourself out of.
I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid.
But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class justice system, with good outcome for people who can afford good lawers and people qho cannot.
When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. But it makes sense, that lawers think different about that.
Note also that even an innocent person will almost always give contradicting accounts of a situation if interrogated for long enough.
[edit]
There were several such examples, including the one I remembered from 14-23 minutes.
Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police.
He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You simply can't know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to narrow the scope immediately. At that point you can address the actual charges rather than letting the police fish through hours of your babbling hunting for something to hang you with.
> When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design.
That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to "cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?
I agree with the basic advice. That being said, if a cop knocks on my door and says the neighbor's kid is missing, I'm still willing to take the minute personal risk of being implicated in order to help the police in their search.
Yes, technically I could have been the last one to see the kid alive and this could make me a suspect, but I also couldn't live with myself if I knew something but withheld it and something bad happened.
One idea of the police was to be servants of the people and not a power tool of the elite.
The "never speak to the police" paradigm would mean to me that police is all evil intended. And that would be the case, I dont think the solution is just more lawers.
Would that even be admissible?
It comes down to the "calling a lawyer constitutes guilt" argument, which seems like it would cause any judge to roll her eyes.
The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find something to hang me by if you let me ramble for hours.
> You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie).
I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any communication) if their spouse is missing.
What we have to remember is it is just a job for law enforcement and prosecutors. It is best to think of them as machines that act on some kind of feedback loop (incentives). We cannot directly make improvements to the machines. We have to try to change the incentive structure if we want any change in how the machines work.
So the question is: what are the incentives and what needs changing?