anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Yes, it does.  Once the suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel all questioning must cease and officers are prohibited from doing or saying anything reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.  It’s called the Edwards Rule, since it was based on the ruling in Edwards v. Arizona.


anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Yes, according to the ruling (not law) in the case of Edwards v. Arizona.  Once a suspect in custody has invoked his right to counsel, police cannot initiate further questioning under the assumption that, if the suspect answers further questions, he has decided to waive the right to counsel he invoked earlier.  Instead, once the suspect invokes his right to counsel, police officers must cease all questioning and must also refrain from any words or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.



anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Since the scenario being discussed is, specifically, what happens if a suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel, it is true that there are no games or torture, however you prefer to define it.  Once the suspect invokes his right to counsel there are no further questions (other than questions regarding the collection of booking and biographical data), no games, and no torture.  


anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

Of course you don’t.  But whether you have a full confession, partial confession, or pertinent information obtained via the interview, if it was not properly obtained it is worse than worthless.  Any such information obtained in violation of the suspect’s rights will be excluded, therefore police not only have no motivation to go after such information, but are in fact actively discouraged by the courts from doing so.


anti- wrote on Aug 6^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

There are, unfortunately, unethical police officers just like there are unethical members of every other profession.  That is not an implication; it is a fact.
Deviousness on the part of the police is completely acceptable to the courts.  There is no question about that.  However, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.  Once a suspect in custody invokes his right to counsel all questioning must stop.  Further questioning, no matter how devious, is simply not allowed and therefore is avoided by all ethical police officers.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:


The fact that I asked for confirmation indicates that I did not reach the conclusion that you exhaust and mentally torture suspects. But I did and do suspect that a lot people in your line of work treat suspects that way.

Quote:


That doesn't mean that officers won't try to get the suspect to say something that can later be used to hang him in court. The "interviewers" don't need an explicit confession of guilt, just a response that can be twisted in such a way as to project to the jury the idea that the suspect tacitly accepted his guilt. Watch the video posted by George Maschke.

Quote:


According to what law? Not according to Edwards v. Arizona: 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=451&invol=477

Quote:


The part about no games is likely not true. The part about torture depends on your definition of that word. After all, according to former president George W. Bush no one was "tortured" at Guantanamo, even though most liberals disagreed. Perhaps "distress" is a better word?

Quote:


You don't need a full-fledged confession to hang someone in court.

Quote:


The qualifier "ethical" in front of the words "police officer" implies that not all police officers are ethical. If all police officers were ethical then using the word "ethical" to refer to them would be redundant. As far as the distinction between "ethical" and "not ethical" is concerned, it depends on the subjective opinion of the person making that judgment. For example, what if the police officer reasons that a little deviousness on his part is the ethical thing to do since it serves the higher purpose of getting a "criminal" off the streets?

anti- wrote on Aug 4^th, 2010 at 3:37am:

I don’t know how you read what I wrote and came to the conclusion that I play psychological games until the exhausted, desperate suspect tells me what I want to hear simply to end the mental torture I am inflicting.

Once a suspect in custody invokes his right to have an attorney present during question all questioning must stop (see Edwards v. Arizona).  In addition, officers are not allowed to do or say things are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.  There are no games or torture.  

One of the things I wrote was that a properly obtained confession is difficult to beat in court.  A confession obtained after I ignore the suspect’s invocation of his sixth amendment rights and after I play psychological games to inflict torture is not “properly obtained” and is therefore worthless.  I am not going to spend my time hunting worthless confessions.
  
Regarding your question, I and every other ethical police officer will definitely, absolutely leave the suspect alone (as in no longer conducting an interrogation, although booking and biographical data may still be obtained) once he indicates that he plans to remain silent until he gets an attorney.  To do otherwise is a waste of time and resources; not only will any confession be excluded, but any evidence that confession led to will be excluded, as well as any statements from parties identified via the excluded confession.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:15am:


Every suspect has the right to remain silent just like you have the right to try your best to "convince" the suspect to voluntarily give up his right to remain silent. Sure, you won't put a gun to his head and force him to talk, but you will play psychological games until the suspect, exhausted and desperate to end the mental torture, tells you what want you to hear. Isn't that true? Or will you really leave the suspect alone once he indicates that he plans to remain silent until he gets an attorney?

Did youcommit the crime?  If so, then plead guilty and accept judgment.  If not, make the cops prove a bogus case against you.  That's my thoughts.

anti- wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 3:43am:

A professional cop won't believe you are guilty simply because you don't wish to make a statement.  If my case is hanging on getting a confession from the suspect then I don't have much to start with.  It is my job to find evidence to establish probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime, though in my area the State's Attorneys prefer the police to provide enough evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  If I can't do that without a confession then I need to look harder, work the case from a different angle, look at old evidence in a new light, or eat the case.  I might suspect someone is guilty, but what I suspect is not going to make the case.

A properly-obtained confession is extremely difficult to wiggle out of once it gets to court.  When I interview a suspect I put a good amount of time and effort into preparing for it for exactly that reason.  I never rely on getting the interview, but if I encounter someone willing to talk to me I can generally get them to write out a sworn statement that includes a confession.  If they won't talk to me I just keep working the case from other angles.  Whether their refusal to talk makes me think they are innocent or guilty is irrelevant; every suspect has the right to avoid making incriminating statements to me in an interrogation.  I choose to look at a suspect's refusal to consent to an interview as nothing more than a very understandable refusal to part with one of the rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights.

cga 1974

You better find another lawyer. Any lawyer that would suggest taking a police polygraph is either with them or doesn't know doodly about the polygraph. Ask him if he will be able to attend the session. Answer: HE WILL NOT. Usually, when they ask someone to take a polygraph, they don't have enough evidence to convict you. As has been stated, guilty or innocent, the police polygrapher will fail you and use the session to to interrogate you without your lawyer being present. Don't ever forget the polygrapher IS a policeman/policewoman. Also don't believe that if you pass you will be cleared. Police are allowed to lie to get a conviction.

My advice is: If you're guilty, plead and take your medicine. Your lawyer can arrange a plea deal where you get a reduced charge and less punishment. Happens all the time. If you're innocent, tell them to stick the poly machine where the sun don't shine and fight like hell.

anti-,

Sure, police might argue that refusal to speak with them is a tacit admission of guilt. But that's an argument that cannot be made in court. There may be situations where it is in an innocent suspect's interest to provide information to law enforcement officers, but that is best done through legal counsel.

I don't have an opinion regarding whether bench or jury trials are generally preferable.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 3:50am:


Mr. Maschke, very interesting videos. Let me ask you something: if I refuse to talk to the police, won't they argue (rightly or wrongly) that my refusal to talk to them amounts to a tacit confession of guilt? If I am innocent, and know that I can prove my innocence, am I not better off telling the truth and hope that someone will believe me instead of keeping quiet and falsely projecting the idea that I'm not innocent? Keeping quiet is counterintuitive and even seems counterproductive, doesn't it?

Incidentally, do you recommend accused people in the US to waive their right to a trial by jury of their peers? Judging by the way most laypeople think, I think I would be better off being judged by a professional judge than a jury of laypeople.

I have not been asked, and I will not do so.  I've asked my attorney several times if that's a condition of the deal, and have never gotten a straight answer.  I'll be absolutely sure of it before I go (if I go at all) and will just refuse to sign and walk out if necessary.

I've also suggested to my attorney at least to do an independent polygraph first.  He said they won't honor the deal if I do.  When asked why, he said because the police polygraph examiner believes I can prep for the test with it.  To me, that speaks to the reliability of these tests right there.

I have downloaded the e-book and printed it, by the way.  It's been INCREDIBLY informative thus far.

Have you signed (or been asked to sign) an agreement stipulating that the polygraph results will be admissible as evidence at trial?

I apologize for the misunderstanding.  My current case has nothing to do with the robbery of my house.  I was simply stating two scenarios in which I had some personal knowledge of polygraph testing.  

In my current situation, I have been charged with a crime already.  My lawyer said, "This is a perfect polygraph case."  He has arranged for me to take the polygraph with the arrangement that if I pass the polygraph the charges against me will be dropped.  However, given what I've read about polygraphs and my experience with the police on this case so far, they have very little reason, if any, to suddenly come to my defense via a polygraph test.

cga1974 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 8:41pm:


First off, you don't "have" to take a polygraph. You cannot be compelled to submit to a polygraph interrogation in a criminal investigation. And that's what polygraph "testing" actually is: an excuse to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer present. It is apparent that you are suspected of the crime of filing a false police report. You would be wise to refuse the polygraph, retain legal counsel, and not speak with the police in the absence of counsel.

Quote:


The fact that the girl has passed a polygraph will certainly prejudice the outcome of any polygraph "test" to which you might agree.

Quote:


This is not so surprising. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis and is strongly biased against truth-tellers. A statistical analysis (PDF) of the best published field studies of polygraphy suggests that "if a subject fails a polygraph, the probability that she is, in fact, being deceptive is little more than chance alone; that is, one could flip a coin and get virtually the same result for a positive test based on the published data."

Quote:


To the best of my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed research into the question you raise.

Quote:


Yes, it's precisely the same kind of thing. Polygraphy is all about interrogation. See law professor James Duane's lecture on why, even if you're telling the truth, you should avoid talking to the police:



See also police interrogator George Bruch's follow-up talk:



Quote:


See our e-book book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF). It will help you reach an informed decision regarding polygraphy and how best to proceed in your current situation.

I have to take a polygraph next week to clear myself of some charges. I have some concerns about false positives and would like to ask for opinions from both sides of the fence.

Once my house was broken into by the neighborhood kids. One of the neighborhood girls came to my house, confessed to driving the other kids to sell my things. I agreed that I would ask that charges not be pressed against her if she turned in the others. She refused.

I gave the police her information and they gave her a polygraph. Not only did she pass the polygraph regarding her involvement, but passed the question they asked her about having confessed to my wife and I.

Also, another friend of mine was subjected to a polygraph in which he and his ex-wife both failed opposite questions. He said he didn't hit her, and failed. She said he did hit her, and failed.

Needless to say, these experiences leave a bad taste in my mouth about these things, and leaves me skeptical.

I fear false positives mostly because of TV I guess. The perception is that a person will remain calm if they're telling the truth, and not if they aren't. Because of the nature of the questions I'll be asked, I will not remain calm. The subject itself causes me anxiety and physically want to be ill. Some skeptics claim the reaction to the question itself can cause a "deceptive" reaction. If that's true however, it seems that if the response is a reaction to the question, then the answer wouldn't matter. Have there been studies where one answers "yes" falsely to such a question, and truthfully answers "no" and both illicit a "deceptive" answer due to the nature of the question?

Also, I'd be much more agreeable to having an independent polygraph done. The police want to conduct their own, and it just seems to me that the police are the "other team" and would be bias both in the way the questions are asked and the interpretation. Never talk to the police without an attorney, right? Isn't this kinda the same thing?

Anyway, would love responses from both sides. I've read examiners on here post about how skeptics have an agenda, but I would think BOTH would have an agenda. I just want both opinions to weigh for myself.

Thanks