Quote of the Day
got a call from a criminal defendant I believe is innocent. Before calling me, he voluntarily participated in a police interrogation for several hours. He believed that “I have nothing to hide” and that he could explain to the police why they had the wrong guy.
Defense attorneys might call this naïve, but look at the responses to Fleishman’s OP. Even high-IQ people really believe this is how law enforcement works.
Here’s the problem. When you agree to a police interrogation, you and the police are playing two different games.
As the suspect, you believe you are playing a multiplayer, collaborative game.
But the police aren’t even playing a multiplayer game. They’re playing a one-player game, like Tetris.
As the suspect, you’re not a player in the game. You’re more like the game environment, producing falling blocks for the player—the police.
The police play this game by collecting your statements like blocks and fitting them into a picture that incriminates you. When enough blocks have fit together, the police have won the game and refer the case to a prosecutor.
You believe that, once you convince the police that you are innocent, you will all win. But that’s not a real outcome of the game. “Evidence that I am innocent” is not even a game element. From the cops’ perspective, if they fail to assemble the blocks into an incriminating picture, they have lost the game.
Suspects who think “I have nothing to hide” are always surprised when the interrogation lasts several hours. “I’ve already explained everything – why am I still here?” they think.
That’s because the longer the game goes on, the more falling blocks the police have to assemble their case. It’s in their interests to keep the game going long past what your game required.
All suspects eventually sense this on some gut level and become frustrated. You think: “Wait a minute, – all of their questions are subtly premised on my guilt! But I can prove to them that I’m not guilty. I need to appeal to them to really hear me out.”
I.e., “Let’s start over with a different game where we can all work together.”
But even as you’re trying to change the game, you are speaking and therefore generating more blocks.
Here’s the only solution. The moment you have any reason to believe you’re a suspect, exit the game. Politely ask if you are free to leave. If they say “no,” calmly tell them “I invoke my right to remain silent and my right to counsel.”
If you’re in custody when you say this, the cops will actually physically stand up and leave the room as if you’ve just uttered a magic incantation.
Ian Huyett @IanHuyett
Posted on X, September 1, 2025
I have never heard it explained like this before. This is awesome!
I have had similar thoughts, but I had no idea how to explain it so well. And my thoughts were more based on the assumption that the police were outright evil. It goes like this…
Every bit of information I give the police could be used to construct evidence and motivations that is consistent with my alibi and innocent reasons for my actions such that my alibi and reasons are neutralized.
Exercise your Fifth Amendment rights. Do not talk to the police if you might be a suspect in a crime.
Yes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&pp=ygUYZG9uJ3QgdGFsayB0byB0aGUgcG9saWNl
Here’s a law school professor saying the same thing in 45 minutes. There is a following video from a Police officer who turned Lawyer – he gets on and says “yes, everything that guy said is 100% correct”.
I was thinking about that professor in that very presentation. Thankfully you can find these things that seem to exist only in my memory.
The law professor linked to, James Duane is also a criminal defense attorney of many years practice. He has written a short (152 page) book on this topic, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN INNOCENT:
https://www.amazon.com/james-duane/s?k=james+duane
They will also hoover up everything you have ever said on line.
When being interrogated, imagine that there is a sign behind the officer that says, “I hate you and want to put you in jail.”
Ah. Tetris is a great analogy.
I have a relative who was a police detective. He became disillusioned and went back to being a traffic cop when he realized his superiors cared only about a quick resolution. Guilt or innocence were irrelevant.
In my opinion intentionally getting an inocent person convicted for a crime is at least as bad as the crime in question, say murder. Not knowing the person is actually innocent and getting them convicted is like negligent homicide in that case. How did our justice system become so corrupt, or was it always this way due to perverse incentives and human nature? We need strong incentives to do the right thing at every level of government; unfortunately we can’t even agree on what the right thing is.
Sage advice in all comments today!
And if I can join the choir.
In all things police, exercise your rights to “shut the f–k up.”.
Every cop I’ve ever talked to outside of a uniform has told me that.
And like my brother said (who was a cop for 30+ years). “If they had evidence, you would already be in cuffs, they’re just fishing for more. Never give it to them.”
He said the hardest case he ever had was an American Indian that was accused of murder. He talked to nobody for 30 days. To ringers and inmates alike. When they let him out of jail he told the jailer, thank you. As he walked off.
That’s class.
Some Defense Attorney said something about 60- 70 years ago that the prisons would be empty if people just kept their mouths shut.
The little card with the Miranda rights printed on it says “Anything you say can and will be used against you.” This is true. It certainly won’t be used FOR your case, and it may not even be admitted into court.
We had an expert witness who wasn’t speaking specifically about criminal cases when he said, “Don’t supply the bullet when you opponent has an empty gun” (He said that at lunch, not in court or in front of the opposing attorney)..
The little card with the Miranda rights printed on it says “Anything you say can and will be used against you.” This is true. It certainly won’t be used FOR your case, and it may not even be admitted into court.
Like the law professor said in the video Chris linked above (1st comment), it’s not that anything you say won’t be used for your case, it can’t be used for your case.
The police will log and record anything they can use against you. That will be admitted as evidence/testimony in court. But anything you say to try to prove your innocence, they won’t record as evidence, and if you try to introduce it in court as part of your defense, the prosecutor will raise his hand and say, “Objection, hearsay,” and the judge will agree. It’s not admissible, and it CANNOT help you if it’s not admissible.
It’s infinitely* better to just not give the police anything to work with. Damage not done is damage that doesn’t need to be undone.
———
* – “Infinitely” as in “divide by zero”, in a sense. Supposing your case goes to court, your attorney will have to divide his/her efforts to discredit all of the prosecution’s arguments along with providing your alibi and other defense evidence/testimony. How much more effort can go into that if the prosecution has nothing to bring and nothing to discredit or explain away?
“The moment you have any reason to believe you’re a suspect, exit the game.”
That moment occurs when the cop says “hello.” There is no such thing as “not a suspect.” Most, if not all, cops believe “you’re guilty of something, we just haven’t found out what yet.”
I can see a case being made for talking when you initiated the contact to report a crime.
“I can see a case being made for talking when you initiated the contact to report a crime.”
Perhaps, maybe even “probably.” But…unless it can be very clearly established at the outset that you are the victim, or, maybe, a witness, anything beyond that is “playing their game, by their rules, on their home field” and best conducted through a professional intermediary charged with representing your interests. It is always an adversarial relationship with the cops. And, still, even in those cases, provide the minimum necessary information, STFU, breathe through your nose and let your hired pro handle it. I hate that this amounts to “shilling for lawyers” but a few bucks up front can save lots in the long run. It ain’t even a little bit like what you see on TV.
Absolutely right.
If there is any possible way that you might be remotely connected to the crime you must insist on an attorney.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » A VERY SUCCINCT WAY OF EXPLAINING WHY “I WISH TO SPEAK TO MY LAWYER” IS THE ONLY ANSWER TO POLICE IN
That’s a great analogy.
The other thing about interrogating you for long periods is that they ask the same questions over and over. The suspect gets tired, gets annoyed, gets frustrated and maybe gets a little sarcastic or facetious. Answers a few of the questions in subtly different ways. After the fourth retelling, starts to question his own responses “why are they asking me this again, they must be looking for a different answer, maybe I should say I don’t remember the exact time, or that I’m not sure what color that car was (or whatever)”
All of that plays right into their hand. Then they can testify that you were lying to them because your story “kept changing”, or that your sarcastic response was intended to be taken literally, or whatever.
The thing to remember is that cops and prosecutors don’t get participation trophies for detaining suspects they then release. They only get accolades and awards and recognition for sending people to prison. Whether the person they send to prison actually did the crime is a consideration, but not the only one. Probably not the primary one.
And if the cops and/or prosecutors become convinced that you did it, but just don’t have the evidence to make it stick, a good number of them will create the evidence they need to make it stick. They see it as a righteous thing because they’re “bending” the law to make sure someone they are convinced is a bad guy is punished.
The whole “fake but accurate” thing.
My wife likes those “true crime” type documentaries. I take them with a grain of salt because the documentarian is always approaching the story from a point of view “look at this innocent guy railroaded by the police”, or “look at how incompetent the police are for not making an arrest in this obvious case” or whatever.
Anyway, what constantly amazes me is how many suspects will sit through multiple interrogation sessions, some of them tens of hours long, and not just say “I’m done, if I’m not under arrest I’m leaving” or asking for a lawyer. Or both.
I don’t know if people think asking for a lawyer makes them look guilty or they just think they can outsmart the cops, or they feel secure in the knowledge that they’re innocent, or what, but it always shocks me.
Our court system is not a justice system (even if they sometimes call it that), it’s a legal system. Even the innocent need help navigating the labyrinthine corridors of the law.
Exercise your rights. All of them.
Never, ever talk to the cops. Even if you are a passing bystander. Salinas v. Texas. If you start answering questions, and then decide it looks like they are trying to frame you, and you invoke your 5th Amendment rights, THAT invocation can be presented as evidence of guilt. It’s bullshit, but there it is.
The first time anyone (besides your lawyer) should hear your side of the story, is in front of the judge.
This limits the ability to selectively edit & twist words to fit the facts, for purposes of supporting a preconceived narrative “theory of the case” (i.e., commit journalism —it’s exactly the same game that is being played. And you. You are also getting played. For a sucker.).
Witnesses were at the scene of the crime at the same time as it was committed.
You know who else was at the scene of the crime at the same time as it was committed? The perp.
All witnesses are pretty much automatically suspects, until & unless they are cleared. Maybe not the prime suspect. Still suspects.
Here’s the thing, a cop’s job is not to find the truth of the matter like some TV cop imagined by a mystery writer who might focus on one suspect and then realize he’s wrong. His goal is to gather enough evidence to convict the person he’s talking to in court. That’s it. Once a cop has decided you are “the guy”, he’s not interested in anything but evidence to convict you. To him, looking for “the truth” beyond that is just doing the defense attorney’s job for him about sewing reasonable doubt.
Also important to note, once the police are convinced you are “the guy”, they stop looking for any other guy. Cops are just as susceptible to tunnel vision and confirmation bias as anyone else.
They don’t want a list of suspects to narrow down, they want a “THE suspect”. Once they have you in their sights as “THE suspect”, as you said, they’re ONLY interested in gathering the evidence to convict YOU. “THEIR truth” is established, and “THE truth” becomes a distant secondary concern.
Meanwhile, the real perpetrator is walking free and covering his/her tracks, making it less likely that the police will ever catch or convict him/her.
Most people do NOT understand that the cops and the Prosecutor/DA are NOT interested in actually catching the criminal who committed the crime. They are only interested in a “box score”. In getting a conviction for a crime. If that conviction is of the actual guilty party…fine. But if that conviction is of someone who is innocent… THAT’S FINE ALSO. They REALLY don’t care WHO they lock up as long as SOMEONE gets locked up. It’s a “game” to them. One upon which more and more tax dollar funding is riding. The more convictions they get….honest or dishonest….the more money they can ask for from corrupt accomplice lawmakers.