Here are the 10 Main Reasons to Never Talk to the #Police! #DefenseAttorney

 Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you.

If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.

REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.

People plead guilty in America every day. Probably over 90% of defendants in state court plead guilty at some point during their case. There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt at a later stage of the proceedings. What’s the rush? Get a lawyer first. Let the lawyer set up a deal whereby you get something in exchange for accepting responsibility for the offense. A better plea bargain, or maybe even immunity. If you confess to the police, you get nothing in return. Zero. In fact, you probably get a harsher prosecution because the state’s case is now airtight, now that you have confessed.

REASON #3: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.

This kind of thing happens all the time. A person who is completely innocent and who is trying to vehemently assert their innocence will go overboard and take it a little bit too far and deny some insignificant fact, tell some little white lie, because they want to sound as innocent as possible. But if the police have evidence of that lie, it makes your entire statement look like a lie. The prosecutor will ask: “Why did he lie to the police? Why indeed would he lie to the police, unless he were guilty?”
That little white lie could be used to destroy your credibility at trial.
An example would be a man who is questioned about a murder. He wants to sound innocent. He wants to sound non-violent. He is, in fact, innocent. So he denies everything. He denies the killing. He denies being in the area where the killing occurred on the night that it occurred. He denies owning a gun, and denies that he has ever owned a gun in his whole life. But it Turns out that this last statement is not true, And the police can prove it. He did at one time during his life own a gun. Now he has told a lie and the police have caught him and things will only go downhill from there. Although he is innocent of the murder, he has told a lie that will be used to destroy his credibility at trial and could be the cause of his conviction.

REASON #4: Even if you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, it is possible to give the police some detail of information that can be used to convict you.

For example, a suspect is being questioned about a murder. He is truly innocent of the murder. But in the course of explaining his innocence, he makes the statement that he never liked the victim, because the victim was not a nice guy. A statement like that could be used to prove motive.
Or in the course of the statement, the suspect might admit that he was in the area of town where the murder was committed at the time it was committed. Although he’s innocent and although this statement is true, the prosecutor could use that statement to suggest that the suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime, which looks very bad in front of a jury.

REASON #5: Even if you were innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, and you don’t give the police any information that can be used against you to prove motive or opportunity, you still should not talk to the police because the possibility that the police might not recall your statement with 100% accuracy.

What if the police officer remembers something wrong? What if he remembers you said “X” when actually you said “Y”? If the police officer takes the witness stand and contradicts your statements at trial, it will kill your credibility. You can take the witness stand and say “I never said that!” But it’s your word versus a police officer. Who’s the jury going to believe? Who will the jury assume is lying to save his own skin? Who will the jury believe is lying because he’s really guilty? You guessed it. YOU!

REASON #6: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth, and your entire statement is videotaped so that the police don’t have to rely on their memory, an innocent person can still make some innocent assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning A suspect about a homicide. And the suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”
When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama, suggesting that suspect has had a Freudian slip, and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.

REASON #7: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth in your statement, and you give the police no information that can be used against you, and the whole statement is videotaped, a suspect’s answers can still be used against him if the police (through no fault of their own) have any evidence that any of the suspect’s statements are false (even if they are really true).

Suppose the police have a statement from a witness who claims to have seen the suspect in the area where the crime was committed at the time of the incident. Suppose further that this witness is actually wrong, but has made an honest mistake. The suspect then gives a statement to the police in which he says he was nowhere near the area where the crime took place at the time of the incident. By giving the statement, the suspect has now created a conflict between his own statement and the statement of this witness. By itself, the statement of the witness that he or she saw the suspect in the area at the time the crime was committed is not that useful. But by giving this statement, and creating a conflict with this witness’s statement, the suspect has now made this relatively minor witness into the government’s star witness.
The jury will hear the conflict and will assume that the suspect is lying and wonder why.
So even if you tell the complete truth, you’re putting your cards on the table without first seeing what evidence the government has. And if the government has some bit of evidence which, through some honest mistake, contradicts part of your story, you set yourself up to be portrayed as a liar by giving a statement without first knowing what evidence the government has.

REASON #8: The police do not have authority to make deals or grant a suspect leniency in exchange for getting as statement.

People tell me all the time that they gave a statement to the police because the police told them that they would be better off if they confessed, better off if they admitted what they did wrong, better off if they cooperated. The police will make vague statements that things will go easier on the suspect if he simply admits what he did wrong. The police will also make vague statements suggesting that they will do what they can to help the suspect, that they will put in a good word for the suspect, if the suspect will just come clean.
Number One thing to remember: The police do not have authority to make deals, grant immunity, or negotiate plea agreements. The only entity with that authority is the District Attorney in state court and the U.S. Attorney in federal court. Despite their claim that they are trying to help you, the only help police are providing when they take your statement is giving you rope with which to hang yourself.

REASON #9: Even if a suspect is guilty, and wants to confess, there may be mitigating factors which justify a lesser charge.

Mitigating factors are rarely brought out by the police in an interview. Normally, police want to focus on the facts that will suggest the suspect has committed the most severe crime possible. In fact, the suspect may have committed a lesser grade of offense. And if given the opportunity to talk to an attorney first, the attorney may be able to explain to the suspect what facts are important in establishing that he is guilty of a lesser grade of an offense, and not a higher grade. A confession presented in this context to the District Attorney’s office might result in a lesser charge and a more appropriate and fair penalty.

REASON #10: Even for a completely honest and innocent person, it is difficult to tell the same story twice in exactly the same way.

If you tell your story one time at trial and you tell the truth and you’re innocent, there’s very little the prosecutor can do by way of cross examination. But if you’ve told your story twice, once at trial, and once previously in a statement to the police, many months apart, the chances are very high that, even if you are telling the truth, some little details in your statement are going to change.
A good cross examiner will pick up on these changes and will relentlessly question you about them in an effort to make it look like you are lying.
So for all these reasons, whether you are guilty or innocent, whether you want to confess or want to exonerate yourself, whether you’re poorly educated or the most eloquent speaker in the world, you should NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, give a statement to the police when you have been detained as a suspect.

Source.... thefreethoughtproject

Stay Safe Out There - If You Need Help just Give Me a Call!

To schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help you, contact Beverly Hills DUI Attorney Jonathan Franklin today.

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Beloved TV Star Sally Struthers Sets Court Date

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

 The beloved U.S. TV star Sally Struthers will mark the anniversary of her 2012 DUI arrest by preparing for a court hearing about the alleged judgment error.

The former All in the Family and Gilmore Girls star, 66, was arrested for drunk driving in Oguinquit, Maine on 12 September (12), but has maintained her innocence ever since.

She'll face the charges against her after jury selection is complete in York County Superior Court in Alfred. The process begins on 23 September (13), according to the Associated Press. The case was originally scheduled for a bench trial in York District Court, but was transferred to the superior court in January (13) after the actress requested a jury trial.

Source.... http://www.hollywood.com/news/brief/55025465/sally-struthers-faces-september-trial-for-dui-arrest

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600    
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Never Curse at a Judge! Fined $500.00 for one Woman in PA.

Newsflash from your Hollywood Attorney:

A Pennsylvania woman has been fined $500 for cursing because she was frustrated with being picked to serve on a jury.

The Erie Times-News ( HTTP://BIT.LY/1BQA4HF ) reports Erie County Judge Ernest DiSantis levied the fine Wednesday on Kathleen Port.

DiSantis told the Erie woman she was "totally out of line" and explained jury service is a duty of citizenship.

Port, whose phone number is unlisted, apologized several times but was fined nonetheless.

She told the judge she was upset because jury service would make her miss work and cost her income.

DiSantis says Port could have claimed a hardship on her jury service questionnaire, but did not.

Read More.... http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ODD_JUROR_FINED_FOR_CURSING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

http://lawofficesofjonathanfranklin.blogspot.com/

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Japanese Whaling Attacked in Court

A small boat from the Sea Shepherd vessel, Steve Irwin, makes a reconnaissance trip past the Japanese whaling ship the Shonan Maru #2 near Freemantle last year. Photo: Reuters

Australia mounted an attack on the scientific basis claimed for Japan's Antarctic whaling as it broadened its case for a ban by the International Court of Justice.

The 26-year-old Japanese program, conducted under a self-awarded special scientific permit, has taken upwards of 10,000 whales, the court heard on Thursday.

Counsel and witnesses  for Australia told the court  in The Hague that the program, currently known as JARPA II, had made a negligible contribution to science.

''JARPA II is not a program of science, it is a parody of science,'' said Professor James Crawford, QC. ''It is designed to keep Japan in the whaling business, come what may.''

Philippe Sands, QC, told the court that French thinker Jules Henri Poincare said science was built upon facts, as a house was built of stones.

But a simple accumulation of facts was no more science than a heap of stones was a house, Poincare had said.

Japanese whalers may have collected data on thousands of body parts, but their program was nothing more than a collection of data.

''It is a heap of stones, not a house,'' Professor Sands said.

''A quarter of century has passed, thousands of whales have been killed, and Japan is unable to offer any discernible progress.''

Professor Sands said as the case was being prepared through written submissions, Japan had refused to respond to criticisms of its science.

''Their view may be summarised in a simple form: 'if we say it's science, it's science','' Professor Sands said.

Australian Antarctic program chief scientist Nick Gales told the court that Japanese whalers' examination of such measures as stomach contents and earplugs had added nothing to what was already known about what minke whales ate, or their age at death.

JARPA II's ''contribution to the conservation and management of minke whales is negligible'',  Dr Gales said.

American scientist Marc Mangel, of the University of Southern California, said Japan's approach to setting a quota of 850 minke whales in JARPA II  was ''absolutely not'' scientifically justified.

''I have been unable to understand how sample sizes have been set in JARPA II,'' Professor Mangel said.

He said the Japanese whaling program lacked any testable hypothesis, and no serious attempt appeared to have been made to explore non-lethal research methods.

After eight years of  JARPA II, he said the  two internationally peer reviewed scientific papers produced were a ''woefully low'' level.

Read More... http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/science-of-japanese-whaling-attacked-in-court-case-20130628-2p0me.html#ixzz2XTQPmJTS

Law Offices of Jonathan Franklin
Open Evenings and Weekends this Summer
Call Us Now (310) 273-9600   
 http://www.jonathanfranklinlaw.com

Ashley Tisdale Appeared in Court for Restraining Order Against a Stalker

Ashley Tisdale appeared in an L.A. courtroom Wednesday to personally beg the court for a permanent restraining order against her alleged stalker ... and the judge has granted her wish.

Nicholas Fiore has been ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from Tisdale and her boyfriend for the next THREE YEARS ... after allegedly threatening the "High School Musical" star -- and bombarding her with more than 18,000 tweets.

Tisdale told the judge she does not know Fiore personally ... and does not consider him a friend ... but said, "I know that he's been tweeting me and has come to my house several times."

Tisdale says Fiore recently violated the temporary restraining order that was already in place by sending her tweets ... when he had been ordered to restrain from all contact, including Twitter.

Fiore did not appear in court -- he's currently being held at L.A. Men's Central Jail ... where he's been in custody since he was arrested for felony stalking.

As part of the restraining order, Fiore is not allowed to possess a firearm -- and the judge ruled that if Fiore currently owns a gun, he must surrender it within 24 hours of his release from jail.

See Video & Read More http://www.tmz.com/2013/06/05/ashley-tisdale-alleged-stalker-court-face-off-nicholas-fiore-twitter/#ixzz2VNAEttiE

TOSSED OUT - 3 Murder Charges for Pa. Abortion Doctor involving babies allegedly born alive

A judge has thrown out some of the murder charges against a Philadelphia abortion provider involving babies allegedly born alive. 

 Gosnell and his staff cut them in the back of the neck to kill them after the babies were born alive.

 Judge Jeffrey  Minehart has not explained the reasoning behind his ruling.

Gosnell still faces charges that he killed a patient and four other babies allegedly born alive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/kermit-gosnell-murder-charges_n_3139986.html

TJ Jackson He Needs Cash To Care for Michael's Kids

TJ Jackson cannot continue to serve as a surrogate parent to Michael Jackson's 3 kids without getting some compensation, so the Executors of MJ's Estate are asking the judge to give TJ a reasonable amount of money to keep the ship afloat.

The Executors filed legal docs -- obtained by TMZ -- in which they say TJ has been extremely devoted to Paris, Prince and Blanket since MJ's death.  TJ -- who is now a co-guardian along with Katherine Jackson -- spends 40 hours a week caring for the 3 kids.

The Executors say it's been a hardship for TJ -- who is married with 3 kids of his own.  Although he's been a co-guardian since July, he hasn't received a single penny for his services.

The Executors are asking the judge to allow them to pay TJ $9,000 a month, retroactive to July.  They add, the way it's going now, TJ may not be able to continue, so compensation is essential.

Read more... http://www.tmz.com/2013/02/06/tj-jackson-money-michael-jackson-estate-executors-kids-paris-prince-blanket/#ixzz2K9asReAK

Colorado Theater Shooting Lawsuits Against Cinemark Shouldn't Be Dismissed, Says Judge

A magistrate judge says more discovery is needed to ascertain theater owner's liability under Colorado law.

The Colorado magistrate judge presiding over various lawsuits brought by victims of the shooting tragedy at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises has recommended to a District Court that the lawsuits be allowed to survive but only under a state law governing premises liability.

The lawsuits come from those wounded in the July 20 shooting in Aurora, Colo., and from family members of those killed. Cinemark, owner of the theater where the shootings took place, is being sued to see whether it holds civil liability for not hiring more security, failing to have alarmed exit doors and other measures the plaintiffs believe could have mitigated 12 deaths and dozens of more injuries. James Holmes is being charged with the criminal act.

In response to the suits, Cinemark has asserted that what happened was not "foreseeable" and that the "fault here lies entirely with the killer."

On Thursday, Judge Michael Hegarty gave his own assessment.

The plaintiffs brought various tort claims in their lawsuits, but Cinemark asserted that only the Colorado Premises Liability Act -- a state law on the liability of a landowner for injuries on premises -- applied.

Hegarty agreed that plaintiffs' claims for negligence and wrongful death should fail because they were abrogated by the CPLA.

Cinemark also challenged whether the plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim for relief under the CPLA since what happened that night wasn't foreseeable.

The plaintiffs argued that Cinemark should have known about previous danger and criminal activity at the theater and the conditions of its premises -- e.g. the unlocked and unmonitored exit door and the lack of security personnel.

"The extent of Defendant's knowledge in this case has yet to be explored," he wrote. "Discovery may reveal that other more serious crimes had occurred at or near the theater and that Defendant had knowledge of such crimes. Further, as the Court noted at the hearing, discovery might show that Defendant had knowledge of and/or concern for the numerous mass shootings that had taken place in the United States in recent times. As the CPLA demonstrates, Defendant, a landowner, has a higher duty of care to its patrons, or 'invitees', and the extent of its knowledge of such duty should be explored."

The judge has recommended that the District Court deny Cinemark's motion to dismiss claims under the CPLA.

Read More...http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/colorado-theater-shooting-lawsuits-cinemark-415365