No. The assertion of a constitutional right can never be considered as evidence of guilt in a criminal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment gives everyone an absolute protection against giving evidence against themselves in criminal cases, and that right attaches as soon as one becomes the target of an investigation. When the interviewing officer testifies at trial, the evidence he or she will offer is geared to prove the defendant’s guilt. So far as the officer is concerned, the person he has arrested is guilty! From the time of the arrest (and sometimes, before the arrest) the officer’s interests are geared to obtain a conviction. Therefore, the officer will welcome statements the accused made to him or her that are either inconsistent with accused’s innocence or which are consistent with the state’s other evidence of the accused’s guilt. Once a person becomes the target of a criminal investigation, he should trust no one but his attorney to protect his interests, and certainly not law enforcement agents. Having a lawyer to advise you before talking to law enforcement officers is your right and should not be waived. As mentioned previously here, Miranda rights inform an arrested person that “anything” he or she says “can” and “will” be used “against” them in court. Telling the investigator, “I didn’t do anything illegal!” is not against one’s interest and actually serves little purpose later (even guilty folks say, “I was framed!”). The Bill of Rights also places upon the government the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Often, it is the accused own statements that tip the scale in favor of guilt instead of innocence. Innocent people believing that they have “nothing to hide” and who therefore freely give up their right to remain silent, often find themselves in more trouble for their civic mindedness, and later resentful of “the system” when they find themselves in no better position than before. But they have no one to blame but themselves because they have refused to use the “standing mute” protections “the system” offers them.

Frequently Asked Questions

 


Q: Won't Requesting a Lawyer Be Used Against Me Later?

A:

No. The assertion of a constitutional right can never be considered as evidence of guilt in a criminal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment gives everyone an absolute protection against giving evidence against themselves in criminal cases, and that right attaches as soon as one becomes the target of an investigation.

When the interviewing officer testifies at trial, the evidence he or she will offer is geared to prove the defendant’s guilt. So far as the officer is concerned, the person he has arrested is guilty! From the time of the arrest (and sometimes, before the arrest) the officer’s interests are geared to obtain a conviction. Therefore, the officer will welcome statements the accused made to him or her that are either inconsistent with accused’s innocence or which are consistent with the state’s other evidence of the accused’s guilt.

Once a person becomes the target of a criminal investigation, he should trust no one but his attorney to protect his interests, and certainly not law enforcement agents. Having a lawyer to advise you before talking to law enforcement officers is your right and should not be waived.

As mentioned previously here, Miranda rights inform an arrested person that “anything” he or she says “can” and “will” be used “against” them in court. Telling the investigator, “I didn’t do anything illegal!” is not against one’s interest and actually serves little purpose later (even guilty folks say, “I was framed!”).

The Bill of Rights also places upon the government the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Often, it is the accused own statements that tip the scale in favor of guilt instead of innocence. Innocent people believing that they have “nothing to hide” and who therefore freely give up their right to remain silent, often find themselves in more trouble for their civic mindedness, and later resentful of “the system” when they find themselves in no better position than before. But they have no one to blame but themselves because they have refused to use the “standing mute” protections “the system” offers them.


Bookmark and Share

Free Reports

Family Law In VirginiaOrder Now

Serious Traffic Offenses in VirginiaOrder Now

Free Case Evaluation

Begin your case review by filling out the form below or call us at 1-804-726-4778.

Name:

Phone:

Email:

Tell us more:


Law Chambers of Anton J. Stelly
P.O. Box 11276
6002A West Broad Street
Suite 205
Richmond, Virginia 23230-1276
Phone: (804) 726-4778
Fax: (804) 726-4779

Get Directions

FAQs

Felony (Larceny /Malicious wounding)

When does a search warrant expire?

When police have a search warrant for a person's house, may they search everywhere?

view more

©2010 Law Chambers of Anton J. Stelly, All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
Attorney website design by Foster Web Marketing, the best attorney website design solution on the Web offering search engine optimization for attorneys, lawyer website design, video for attorneys, and more.
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog

Served By: A