No, it isn't, it is the only sane advice you will get. We are turning into a country where your first action should always be, stay quiet and call a lawyer first.

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.

While it may be beneficial if the police decide you’re a suspect, on the other hand it would also seem to ensure that they will view you as a suspect and investigate the hell out of you. Perhaps they do this with spouses anyway, but it still seems like you’d be drawing extra suspicion. It’s a tough one.

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.

If the police are actively investigating anything that involves them speaking to you, you need a lawyer, as you're well past the point of being concerned about "drawing extra attention".

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.

If I’m understanding correctly, we’re just talking about the initial call to the police when your spouse is missing. I totally agree with you if they ask to interview you after that point, but making the first call (when time may be critical) to a lawyer seems extreme. That’s not to say it’s necessarily wrong of course, but I think the average person would likely see that as strange/suspicious (including cops and jury members).

A significantly shorter video with a similar message:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTurSi0LhJs

Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent?

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.

I haven't watched it in a while, so I may get some specifics wrong, but it goes through various hypotheticals, until finally getting to the point where you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, but talking to the police gets you convicted. IIRC the example was you saying "I was out of town visiting my mom when the crime happened" but they have a (mistaken) witness putting you near the scene. The fact that you (supposedly) lied about where you were combined with other circumstantial evidence may be enough to convict you.

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.

> Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police, when you were in fact innocent?

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?

>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.

Yes, this is what I mean. Of course in that case I would speak as well. And probably most would, without lawer as time matters.

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.

> use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury you're guilty

Would that even be admissible?

Phone records are used as evidence in criminal proceedings all the time.

Yes, but phone records with your lawyer strikes me as a little different than "we see you called the hitman a week before the murder!"

It comes down to the "calling a lawyer constitutes guilt" argument, which seems like it would cause any judge to roll her eyes.

Could you submit that video to the jury as reasoning for having called the lawyer?