I don't pity SBF, but this advice is important for innocent citizens. It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. A police officer can testify against you, but if they try to support you it will be dismissed as "hearsay".
Lawyer here. I give this guy’s book out to anyone I care about. Friends, family. I even highlight the bit at the end with the practical advice. Everyone needs to know this.
The friendliest police officer in the world is not your friend
OTOH, as a former public defender I have no problems talking with the police.
The police aren't your friend. They're also not your enemy.
Talking to the police as part of an investigation doesn't make you a suspect. Seriously, how do people think criminal investigations are done? Talking to witnesses is a huge part of investigating. People very rarely finger themselves as potential suspects; it's almost always the other witnesses who identify them as suspects.
If you're worried that you've done something wrong, talk to a lawyer first. 99.9% of the time, they'll tell you it's fine. Of course, if you tell the police you need to talk to your lawyer first, they'll want to know why you think you need a lawyer; if I were your lawyer, that's the first thing I'd wonder too. And if you weren't considered a potential suspect before you definitely will be on their short list after.
I can see why someone familiar with the law would be comfortable speaking with the police, but it's tough for a lay person to know if they are being lied to or will inadvertantly say something seemingly benign that causes them grief. Given that police are allowed to lie with impunity and might become your enemy, it's almost all downside for oneself to speak to them.
If cops were obligated to be honest in more respects I would be more willing to open up, but of course they don't want any restrictions in that area. Cops in the US want to be able to lie whenever it's convenient and also have everyone trust them, but that's not a very fair bargain for the general public.
If the police are asking you questions, they're not lying to you...they're just asking questions.
And if the police say something seemingly benign that causes you grief, you can look forward to a large-ish settlement to make up for your troubles.
People on HN rarely interact with the police and it seems they have an unrealistic, media-driven perception of how cops actually act. For point of reference, it's the same as how non-techies assume that every tech employee can hack their way into a bank account or rig together a go-kart from spare parts.
Read your own source. Because, by your logic, SBF being a con artist means that all programmers are con artists.
30% These convictions aren't the result of people talking to the police and then getting screwed over. The overwhelming majority of them are the result of cross-racial witness identifications.
To put it bluntly: most wrongful convictions are due to racism on the part of prosecution witnesses.
I'm surprised this classic video is 10+ years old but has only 18M views.
edit: Saw that the professor, James Duane [0], has his own Wikipedia page, almost entirely on the popularity of the Youtube lecture. Even more surprising, his Talk page seems to be free of debate over Duane's notability. Pretty impressive for a single videoed lecture!
> It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you.
Is it really unfortunate? There is simply an implicit assumption that humans avoid incriminating themselves when possible but are very quick to offer excuses. That seems to align pretty well with my experience. Therefore, we assume that if someone says something contrary to their own interest is is more likely to be true.
There are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule, though; there are also times when something that seems like it’s hearsay isn’t. Exception: maybe you made the statement to the cop while you were covered in blood and blubbering about something you had witnessed, making it an excited utterance. Or maybe your lawyer is eliciting the statement from the cop not to suggest to the jury that it’s true, but to show you had no motive, making it fall outside of the hearsay rule.
Police have a responsibility to testify truthfully under oath, within the constraints of the rules on hearsay. But that doesn’t mean they are forbidden from saying anything in your favor, no matter what.
Also if a cop lies hard to say who is right. But if you never talked to a cop unless your lawyer was present with recording equipment, etc. well, that’s a much more solid defense.
Because hearsay is an out-of-court statement, but there are exceptions, including a statement against the person's interest. FRE 804(b)(3).*
In other words, if you try to introduce an out-of-court statement that supports your case, it's hearsay; if the statement is against your interest, it's allowable.
Of course there are other exceptions and nuances, but this is the jist of it.
But it’s not like that acts as a filter against anything in your interest, since it would still come out on cross, right? I tried to illustrate with my comment here:
If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you. If you tell a police officer that you did not commit a crime, you can't have the police officer testify in your defense that you told him that you did not commit the crime.
Witnessing things is a completely different matter.
"If you tell a police officer that you did a crime, then your words are admissible as evidence against you."
This is because the people who wrote the evidence rules believe nobody would admit to a crime unless they are guilty. So it's a hearsay exception.
The exception isn't meant to be a sinister trick to treat you unfairly, it's meant to lead to the right people going to jail and the right people not going to jail.
Ehhh that's still misleading. It makes it sound like when the officer testifies about your statements, it goes through a magical filter in which only the inculpatory(is that the word?) stuff can come in, but not the exculpatory. Like...
During Mirandized interrogation:
Doe: "I grabbed her wrists after she picked up a knife to attack me."
In court:
Prosecutor: "What, if anything, did you learn from questioning Mr. Doe?"
Officer: "He said he grabbed her wrists."
Defense attorney on cross-examination: "In what context did Mr. Doe grab her wrists?"
Officer: "After she picked up a kni--"
Prosecutor: "Objection! Hearsay!"
Judge: "Sustained. Jury will disregard anything about the accuser picking up a knife. Wrist grabbing stuff is fine."
^Not remotely how it works, at all, but what you might falsely believe from being told "your words are admissible against you, not for you".
Talking to the "regular" police and talking to a federal investigator are two completely different things. At the federal level they have "false or misleading statements"[0] which is a felony with a five year max. People have been convicted and done prison time on this alone based on nothing other than the notes and testimony from a federal investigator. At the state level probably the best they have is "obstruction of justice"[1] which requires things like physically interfering with the police or destroying evidence and even those actions have lesser penalties than "false or misleading statements".
I have a friend who is a federal criminal investigator and his advice when/if the feds show up is to say nothing other than "Do you have a business card? Someone will be in touch." and get a lawyer ASAP.
It's hearsay 101 - an out of court statement by someone who didn't say it, being offered for the truth of the statement. it's not hearsay when you say it to the officer because that is a party admission.
There are times when it doesn’t apply. But yes, for most people in most situations, as most of us know, you don’t talk. It’s called the fifth amendment. School children learn about it in civics class.
