Double jeopardy protections are a myth. Laws are so redundant they could just charge you with a “different” crime. And if that fails they can ruin you in civil court. The process is the punishment.
IANAL< but double jeopardy also means that once you are found not guilty of one crime, evidence of that crime is inadmissible for other crimes - so if I am tried for murder and found not guilty, the state can't then prosecute me for manslaughter of the victim.
Under the ASSIMILATIVES CRIMES ACT under the US Code the federal government can take on any state crime and make it federal. That way they are not limited by double jeopardy of only state crimes.
This is why I always say the truth never sets you free. Never confess even if there is a full length detailed video of your crime, never admit guilt. The government, and entire justice system lies every day, to the people, to the courts, to each other, we can too.
Lawyers should force the government to prove guilt, but I don't see that they have the same obligation to keep guilty people from proving their own guilt.
Uh, the standard for criminal conviction is UNANIMOUS opinion of all jurors that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (A) A crime was committed and (B) that the defendant(s) committed the crime. It's called "burden of proof."
Yep good advice!!! However if it’s a state crime or federal crime only with no applicable overlap I think you would be fine… Not saying to take the chance!!!
You're spot on! So long as it is JUST a state offense, with no concern for federal prosecution, then you'd be safe. But these days, there are so many federal crimes that we're essentially unaware of that it isn't worth taking the chance.
But it doesnt work that way. The Karen 2 doors over called 911 about the bodies you buried in the back yard, right where your wife planted a garden, cost you 15 grand to prove yourself innocent, cops still watching you, friends avoid you, and now you discover it was really the guy 2 doors down on the other side of Karen who buried his two dogs in his back yard, ...that Karen poisoned. Your turn is coming.
You would not be protected from any collateral charges, for example, if you chose to testify in your trial and said you were not guilty under oath, you could still get hit for perjury.
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC I’m always thinking about it because it was so wrong. But no money for a lawyer so that’s why I think one reason among others they get away with it. All in my opinion.
Yes, Federal Law and State Law are different under Dual Federalism. A perfect example I will give you is Rodney King, he was acquitted in State Court but found guility in Federal Court. Double Jeopardy just means that you cannot he tried again in the same court with the same subject matter jurisdiction. It doesn't mean that you cannot be charged for different offenses, it doesnt mean that if you are convicted by the federal or state government that you may not then be convicted by the federal or state government. Double Jeopardy is just a procedural due process peotection, not a protection that removes a States Reglatory Power or Federal Governments powers over regulating domestic tranquility. Absolutely correct
Yes this was good info, even for a law abiding citizen like me. It's your right and responsibility to know your rights! Don't wait to have to do your research in the prison law library!
Exactly. I hope I never have to use any of the advice that I see on these legal channels, but I'd rather know useless info than learn after it's too late.
How many are truly capable of keeping their yaps shut, especially if they think they got away with something. You know sooner or later they are gonna have to tell someone.
Did a lawyer just tell guilty people to just keep their lips sealed? Way to live up to the stereotype of lawyers who don’t care about justice just about getting paid.
You can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Doesn't mean that the court will find in the plaintiff's favor, or even entertain the question in the first place, but there's literally no limit on what you can sue for.
I'm literally just scrolling through your shorts seeing what i knew and what's new to me. I remember writing a paper along these lines. I've spent the last 4ish years in school for a bachelor's in CJ. I've retained a lot, but lost interest about halfway through, now I'm almost done 😅 still fun for answering questions and "trivia" for a lack of a better way to put it. But omg I'm so bored with school! 😂
If you're enjoying these, then you'll LOVE our Daily Legal Pop-Quizzes on our Community Tab (see the Channel Page). School is boring if you don't know exactly what you're going to do with that knowledge. Law school for me really started to get interesting when I decided that I was going to open a law firm, so every day I studied with the mindset that I would then have to explain this to a client. With that motivation, school was no longer boring. What do you plan to do with your CJ degree?
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC honestly, I was pressured into it when I started, so I don't have any big plans that I haven't talked myself out of already. I wanted to do a few different things at first, but as time went on I realized I think I wanted to do something else entirely. I enjoy this area of work to an extent, but not enough to be where I'm at.
When I got inducted in the military, they told us about that. If you committed a crime someplace and were convicted in "the local court" (state), you could then walk out and be taken into custody by the military if it was a UCMJ violation and be ALSO convicted under the UCMJ...and it wasn't "double jeopardy" because it's not in the same court. The only place where you can get "double jeopardy" is on a game show.
Could the court charge them with perjury if they lied about their innocence under oath? I think if someone admits guilt after being found not guilty then that should be grounds for a mistrial and rehearing.
Now this is interesting because I knew that 35 years ago. I was watching Quincy MD. What happened was a lawyer for the state failed to convicted man on kidnapping however he did it intentionally to get the child returned to the parents, so when the man was about to leave on a plane federal agents charged him with kidnapping because he took the girl on a reservation. I was so pleased about that.
I don't think that's what the founders had in mind when they made it explicitly clear you could not be prosecuted twice for the same crime, but let's face it, the Taney court gave us some bad precedents that people at this point are scared to do away with.
Also, if you say you did it, you can still be sued for damages in civil court, and your statement is evidence that you did it and are liable for damages for injury you caused.
Same thing with criminal and civil prosecution. Even if you are found not guilty in both State and Federal for the same crime and think you got off scot free. Youn can still be sued in civil court for instance not guilty for murder you can still be found guilty for wrongful death in civil court so there's actually three forms of the justice system.
State and federal crimes are different. A president cannot pardon you from state crimes. Just the govenor of that state can. Sentances are different too. Not only rhat, but same crime different state, has different sentences
What if you are found not guilty in state court and then ask in federal court and you confess and then the government appeals and you go to trial again? Will your statement be used? How long do they have to appeal?
Fortunately, we enjoy the right to be presumed innocent UNLESS proven guilty in Court. Therefore, the jury does not have to make a finding for innocence as it is presumed. Great question!
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC That's one of the reasons why our Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS double jeopardy -- because British law allows it. Ditto for Bills of Attainder, restrictions on assembly, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, quartering of troops in houses during peacetime, warrantless searches, arbitrary restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, demands that a person testify against himself, trial dates set in the distant future or never at all, a persumption that any activity not specifically allowed may be considered a criminal act. The Bill of Rights is the reaction to a whole litany of government abuses that are legal under British law.
I have always wondered, but now I wonder does the same double jeopardy rule apply for both federal and state? In other words if they found you not guilty in both, are you then clear to confess? We now know you would be if it’s a federal crime but would you also be clear in the state (if already found not guilty)?
History of civil rights crimes being " almost" double jeopardy...guys killed black kids back in 1960s, of course it was in the south. They tried and found not guilty in state court, many years later they were re-tried on civil rights charges, got death penalty...
Can't you also be tried again under charges that were not charged in that case but still fit the crime. I know prosecutors all the time don't charge everything they can/worst degree because of different standards of evidence needed.
what if you are found guilty. lets say of murdering someone. you spend 20 years in jail for it and when you get out you find out that the person framed you and left the country. you should be legally able to murder them.
It is not considered perjury to plead Not Guilty. In fact, you're SUPPOSED to plead Not Guilty. We did a whole video on it. 😉 czcams.com/video/WryztzcpQG0/video.html
See, this is what I hate about lawyers. Someone committed a crime and your advice is to keep their mouth shut. I know it is your job to defend your client, I am not saying you are not doing your job well, but I would not be able to look myself in the mirror, knowing guilty people go free because of my actions.
The average American commits 3 felonies per day.* It's only Monday, so you're probably up to 6 felonies just this week alone. If you'd prefer to confess to those felonies instead of maintaining your silence and preserving your presumptions of innocence, then I'm sure that could be arranged. 😁 *Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC I am not American, felonies are not a thing in my country and the convoluted American laws do not apply. Also, from a quick google search, you do realize the title of the book is an exaggeration, right? And you are muddying the waters with that book. I am talking about actual crimes, things that are crimes in every civilized society. Not some convoluted laws. I am talking theft, rape, murder, drug and human trafficking, ... Lawyers will tell you - and correct me if I am wrong - to shut up. And that is my point: I would not sleep well, knowing I got a rapist off (no pun intended).
@@allasar Well if you're going to differentiate between different categories of crimes when determining someone's right to remain silent, then who determines what alleged crimes you get that right for? It isn't an attorney's job to get a defendant off for an alleged crime. It is to advise the defendant on their rights, and to test the evidence to ensure reliability. If someone has the right to not be compelled to incriminate themselves, and the attorney advises them off their right, then why is that problematic?
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC In my humble opinion, it is problematic because at that point, justice is no longer served. A guilty person goes free. We are not going to agree on this, I already hinted to that in my first post. I have seen criminals go free on technicalities. Not because they were not guilty, not because there wasn't conclusive evidence against them, but because of how lawyers protected the rights of criminals. An example comes to mind: years ago a criminal gang was brought before a judge for dealing drugs in my country. We are not talking about some street punks, we are talking about the heads of a criminal empire. They were set free. Why? Because of the following. The police got condemning evidence by wire tapping their phones. These guys were guilty, no doubt about it. I do not know the laws in the US, but in my country an officer has to give clearance on a phone tap. The officer did give the clearance, but did not sign the form. ... did not sign the form. He gave clearance, the bad guys did it, but he did not sign the form. The whole case was thrown out and very, very dangerous criminals walked free on that technicality. All the lawyer did was advice his clients to exert their rights. But the result of that is, dangerous criminals walked free. Sorry for the long post, and obviously you cannot - nor do I demand - give your opinion on this specific case that obviously is more complex than I can type out in a youtube comment section. I just used it to try and make my point of view more clear: a criminal is a criminal, and punishment needs to be given. I could not in good conscience give a criminal advice knowing this will avoid punishment. And finally, I am not saying criminals do not need a defense. If anything, they need it more than anyone else. All I am saying is, there is a difference between getting a milder yet just punishment, and no punishment at all.
@@allasar You're right. We probably won't agree on this point though we may find many other points to agree on. Personally, I believe that 10 guilty men should go free rather than convict even 1 innocent man. Those "technicalities" are what help us to avoid convicting those innocent persons even if it means that some guilty ones go free.
Reminds me of the Emmett Till case. Back in the early 20th century, where racism and lynching was commonplace, a black boy named Emmett Till was accused of catcalling a white woman. Due to the Jim Crow laws at the time, it was a crime. 2 white men related to the woman kidnapped Emmett and brutally beat him and shot him before attaching a heavy fan and drowning him in a lake. They went to court, and unfortunately, the jury was all white. There was a lot of evidence proving they tortured Emmett, however, after an hour into the case, the jury delivered the verdict. Due to the racism at the time, the two men were not guilty. After a while, the two men confessed to the crime and got away with it due to double jeopardy.
This of course is Mathews first law of defense. SHUT THE BLANK UP lol. Let your lawyer talk for you. Thats their job people. And if Mathew is your lawyer he will probably say it better than you could anyway.
The victim or victim's family also may sue you in civil court for damages resulting from the crime.
and in civil court the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the video, but cool story bro
@@GiganticRooster-kn2ljIt actually does. It’s another reason why you might not want to confess, even if you’re safe from criminal prosecution.
Double jeopardy protections are a myth. Laws are so redundant they could just charge you with a “different” crime. And if that fails they can ruin you in civil court. The process is the punishment.
IANAL< but double jeopardy also means that once you are found not guilty of one crime, evidence of that crime is inadmissible for other crimes - so if I am tried for murder and found not guilty, the state can't then prosecute me for manslaughter of the victim.
Yeah, but the feds will.
Under the ASSIMILATIVES CRIMES ACT under the US Code the federal government can take on any state crime and make it federal. That way they are not limited by double jeopardy of only state crimes.
This is why I always say the truth never sets you free. Never confess even if there is a full length detailed video of your crime, never admit guilt. The government, and entire justice system lies every day, to the people, to the courts, to each other, we can too.
The case can be reopened with new evidence. Never underestimate people.
No it cant
@@GiganticRooster-kn2lj Appeals based on new evidence is possible.
@@veleriphon not for the prosecution
I can finally admit it!! Just don't tell the feds ;)
haha! SSSHhhhhhhhh! 😁😉
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLCwhat if its not a federal crime?😊
Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
SO true!
And if you're in the military when the crime happened, JAG can try you even though you were exonerated in court.
Lawyers should force the government to prove guilt, but I don't see that they have the same obligation to keep guilty people from proving their own guilt.
Uh, the standard for criminal conviction is UNANIMOUS opinion of all jurors that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (A) A crime was committed and (B) that the defendant(s) committed the crime.
It's called "burden of proof."
Yep good advice!!! However if it’s a state crime or federal crime only with no applicable overlap I think you would be fine… Not saying to take the chance!!!
You're spot on! So long as it is JUST a state offense, with no concern for federal prosecution, then you'd be safe. But these days, there are so many federal crimes that we're essentially unaware of that it isn't worth taking the chance.
How about you don’t break the law and not have to worry about anything.
Wouldn't that be great?!
But it doesnt work that way. The Karen 2 doors over called 911 about the bodies you buried in the back yard, right where your wife planted a garden, cost you 15 grand to prove yourself innocent, cops still watching you, friends avoid you, and now you discover it was really the guy 2 doors down on the other side of Karen who buried his two dogs in his back yard, ...that Karen poisoned. Your turn is coming.
You would not be protected from any collateral charges, for example, if you chose to testify in your trial and said you were not guilty under oath, you could still get hit for perjury.
"if I did it"
So now we don't have double Jeopardy prohibition 😢😢😢
Your confession could also be used against you in a civil case.
Yup, civil court too!!!
The feds are not supposed to have jurisdiction over state offenses
Yeah what if you found not guilty because a cop lied what happens to that cop? Nothing
Well, depending on the severity of the lie, it could lead to a civil rights lawsuit.
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC I’m always thinking about it because it was so wrong. But no money for a lawyer so that’s why I think one reason among others they get away with it. All in my opinion.
The can always find new things to charge you with too.
Yup. Shit I mean if I recall correctly it's how they eventually got Al Capone. I believe they ultimately got him on tax evasion charges lmfao
Yes, Federal Law and State Law are different under Dual Federalism. A perfect example I will give you is Rodney King, he was acquitted in State Court but found guility in Federal Court. Double Jeopardy just means that you cannot he tried again in the same court with the same subject matter jurisdiction. It doesn't mean that you cannot be charged for different offenses, it doesnt mean that if you are convicted by the federal or state government that you may not then be convicted by the federal or state government.
Double Jeopardy is just a procedural due process peotection, not a protection that removes a States Reglatory Power or Federal Governments powers over regulating domestic tranquility.
Absolutely correct
Did I just find the real life Saul Goodman channel 😂
Subscribed
If you're committed enough, you can make any story work. I once convinced a woman I was Kevin Costner, and it worked because I believed it!
Wow! America
Good to know.
Yes this was good info, even for a law abiding citizen like me. It's your right and responsibility to know your rights! Don't wait to have to do your research in the prison law library!
You're so right! Know your rights and use 'em or you'll lose 'em.
Exactly. I hope I never have to use any of the advice that I see on these legal channels, but I'd rather know useless info than learn after it's too late.
"...even for a law abiding citizen like me."
lol You're a criminal.
Also, watch out for the pendinding civil suit
How about if you're guilty confess and accept your punishment? How about just be good?
If only it were so easy! lol
And, of course, you can always get sued for damages!
So that’s how Fauchi got away with releasing that chemical.
How bout just DON'T DO THE CRIME!!!
How many are truly capable of keeping their yaps shut, especially if they think they got away with something. You know sooner or later they are gonna have to tell someone.
Goooood Thursday to you Mr. Matthew Sir! 😎
Happy Friday Eve to you!
Why is he wearing airborne wings lol
Because I was Airborne? Is this a trick question? 🤣
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC he passed
Did a lawyer just tell guilty people to just keep their lips sealed? Way to live up to the stereotype of lawyers who don’t care about justice just about getting paid.
lol. You have a right to not incriminate yourself, and you're upset that someone is advised of the rights available to them?
Did the federal government just admit that states can do whatever they want without asking the feds???? Since they are two different governments.
civil lawsuit incoming
If such a confession is made, could the former defendant also be prosecuted for perjury?
This is what’s wrong with Western Civilization - protect the villains.
Also neglects the fact that you can be sued civily for some crimes.
"Neglects" might be a stretch. lol More like "doesn't explain all laws in under 60 seconds." 😆
You can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Doesn't mean that the court will find in the plaintiff's favor, or even entertain the question in the first place, but there's literally no limit on what you can sue for.
Sadly double jepardy has been done away with in the UK.
Or they make up a new crime for the same event.
I'm literally just scrolling through your shorts seeing what i knew and what's new to me. I remember writing a paper along these lines. I've spent the last 4ish years in school for a bachelor's in CJ. I've retained a lot, but lost interest about halfway through, now I'm almost done 😅 still fun for answering questions and "trivia" for a lack of a better way to put it. But omg I'm so bored with school! 😂
If you're enjoying these, then you'll LOVE our Daily Legal Pop-Quizzes on our Community Tab (see the Channel Page).
School is boring if you don't know exactly what you're going to do with that knowledge. Law school for me really started to get interesting when I decided that I was going to open a law firm, so every day I studied with the mindset that I would then have to explain this to a client.
With that motivation, school was no longer boring. What do you plan to do with your CJ degree?
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC honestly, I was pressured into it when I started, so I don't have any big plans that I haven't talked myself out of already. I wanted to do a few different things at first, but as time went on I realized I think I wanted to do something else entirely. I enjoy this area of work to an extent, but not enough to be where I'm at.
Plus there could be a civil suit.
When I got inducted in the military, they told us about that. If you committed a crime someplace and were convicted in "the local court" (state), you could then walk out and be taken into custody by the military if it was a UCMJ violation and be ALSO convicted under the UCMJ...and it wasn't "double jeopardy" because it's not in the same court. The only place where you can get "double jeopardy" is on a game show.
Could the court charge them with perjury if they lied about their innocence under oath?
I think if someone admits guilt after being found not guilty then that should be grounds for a mistrial and rehearing.
Do they make you swear an oath to tell the truth before you plead?
@@NiceMuslimLady I'm talking about if they testify.
@@CognitiveHeatsink When you are asked how you plead, you are testifying.
You can be prosecuted by both and do time in both prisons for the same crime.
He’s wrong not guilty with prejudiced and not guilty
Now this is interesting because I knew that 35 years ago. I was watching Quincy MD. What happened was a lawyer for the state failed to convicted man on kidnapping however he did it intentionally to get the child returned to the parents, so when the man was about to leave on a plane federal agents charged him with kidnapping because he took the girl on a reservation.
I was so pleased about that.
I was watching an old episode of Quincey. This actually happened with a kidnapping.
Yep! That's both a State and Federal crime.
Quincy! The original Dr. House!
I don't think that's what the founders had in mind when they made it explicitly clear you could not be prosecuted twice for the same crime, but let's face it, the Taney court gave us some bad precedents that people at this point are scared to do away with.
New evidence means new trial
There are military tribunals, state, federal, and civil courts.
There might be one I'm missing that I don't know about.
Also, if you say you did it, you can still be sued for damages in civil court, and your statement is evidence that you did it and are liable for damages for injury you caused.
Oh so thats why oj could just write a book about how he did it after he was found not guilty?
And if you took the stand you or other witnesses could be charged for perjury.
Same thing with criminal and civil prosecution. Even if you are found not guilty in both State and Federal for the same crime and think you got off scot free. Youn can still be sued in civil court for instance not guilty for murder you can still be found guilty for wrongful death in civil court so there's actually three forms of the justice system.
Or, um I don't know, maybe not commit any crimes.
They can’t prosecute you again it’s called double Jeopardy🤔✌🏼
Sure sounds like the government doing it twice
State and federal crimes are different. A president cannot pardon you from state crimes. Just the govenor of that state can. Sentances are different too. Not only rhat, but same crime different state, has different sentences
so the supreme court is violating laws to get around the law we have. figures.
This has happened a few times and there has been movies made with this as a storyline.
See OJ can tell how he did it and what happened to the knife and get in a round of golf,
Double jeopardy is real
What if you are found not guilty in state court and then ask in federal court and you confess and then the government appeals and you go to trial again? Will your statement be used? How long do they have to appeal?
How often are people found "innocent?"
Fortunately, we enjoy the right to be presumed innocent UNLESS proven guilty in Court. Therefore, the jury does not have to make a finding for innocence as it is presumed. Great question!
When God walks on water, he will invoke Fifth.
you can be tried twice for the same crime in Great Britain
What?! That's terrible! Are there state courts and federal/national courts there as well?
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC
That's one of the reasons why our Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS double jeopardy -- because British law allows it. Ditto for Bills of Attainder, restrictions on assembly, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, quartering of troops in houses during peacetime, warrantless searches, arbitrary restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, demands that a person testify against himself, trial dates set in the distant future or never at all, a persumption that any activity not specifically allowed may be considered a criminal act.
The Bill of Rights is the reaction to a whole litany of government abuses that are legal under British law.
Thus began the persecutions of political opponents, by activist Judges.
two different jurisdictions = not double jeopardy
Like OJ
Or...just...dont commit a crime :)
Ynw molly entered the chat
Civil Court
The government can’t prosecute if they can’t find you either… fyi.
I have always wondered, but now I wonder does the same double jeopardy rule apply for both federal and state? In other words if they found you not guilty in both, are you then clear to confess? We now know you would be if it’s a federal crime but would you also be clear in the state (if already found not guilty)?
History of civil rights crimes being " almost" double jeopardy...guys killed black kids back in 1960s, of course it was in the south. They tried and found not guilty in state court, many years later they were re-tried on civil rights charges, got death penalty...
Psssh, the state will just change the type of charges. You have no idea how many variations there are of the same type of crimes!
Plus civil suits are a possibility, see oj Simpson
If you pleaded "not guilty" and then admit your guilt after the trial, can't you then be charged with perjury?
That's a great question! The answer is NO. Because of the presumption of innocence, you can plead Not Guilty without any repercussions.
Perjury
You mean like OJ did? With his book, If I did it.
Shhhh Nobody talk to the Feds! 🤫🤐😂
😂😎🤭
So if someone gets away with murder then a video comes out and it's clearly them killing the person nothing would happen? That's a bit messed up
What if you get prosecuted twice and still win twice
Can't you also be tried again under charges that were not charged in that case but still fit the crime. I know prosecutors all the time don't charge everything they can/worst degree because of different standards of evidence needed.
The UCMJ enters chat
what if you are found guilty. lets say of murdering someone. you spend 20 years in jail for it and when you get out you find out that the person framed you and left the country. you should be legally able to murder them.
I have better advice, don’t commit a crime in the first place.
Thats such a dumb law.
Don't forget, kids, you can still be sued in civil court for damages. So STFU if you wanna keep your bank account intact😊
This is one of the DUMBEST laws ever! TOTALLY STUPID!
It's hard to disagree with you.
Yeah they still prosecute sometimes though.
But you could be sued
I was right! Sort of.
You were both partially correct! I'm so proud of you both. ♥
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC I was fist pumping until the half way mark. Then I was like, “huh, we WERE both right.”
Casey Anthony just entered the chat after her Peacock “story” 👀 😅
What about perjury?
It is not considered perjury to plead Not Guilty. In fact, you're SUPPOSED to plead Not Guilty. We did a whole video on it. 😉 czcams.com/video/WryztzcpQG0/video.html
See, this is what I hate about lawyers. Someone committed a crime and your advice is to keep their mouth shut. I know it is your job to defend your client, I am not saying you are not doing your job well, but I would not be able to look myself in the mirror, knowing guilty people go free because of my actions.
The average American commits 3 felonies per day.*
It's only Monday, so you're probably up to 6 felonies just this week alone. If you'd prefer to confess to those felonies instead of maintaining your silence and preserving your presumptions of innocence, then I'm sure that could be arranged. 😁
*Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC I am not American, felonies are not a thing in my country and the convoluted American laws do not apply.
Also, from a quick google search, you do realize the title of the book is an exaggeration, right? And you are muddying the waters with that book.
I am talking about actual crimes, things that are crimes in every civilized society. Not some convoluted laws. I am talking theft, rape, murder, drug and human trafficking, ... Lawyers will tell you - and correct me if I am wrong - to shut up. And that is my point: I would not sleep well, knowing I got a rapist off (no pun intended).
@@allasar Well if you're going to differentiate between different categories of crimes when determining someone's right to remain silent, then who determines what alleged crimes you get that right for?
It isn't an attorney's job to get a defendant off for an alleged crime. It is to advise the defendant on their rights, and to test the evidence to ensure reliability.
If someone has the right to not be compelled to incriminate themselves, and the attorney advises them off their right, then why is that problematic?
@@MatthewHarrisLawPLLC In my humble opinion, it is problematic because at that point, justice is no longer served. A guilty person goes free.
We are not going to agree on this, I already hinted to that in my first post. I have seen criminals go free on technicalities. Not because they were not guilty, not because there wasn't conclusive evidence against them, but because of how lawyers protected the rights of criminals.
An example comes to mind: years ago a criminal gang was brought before a judge for dealing drugs in my country. We are not talking about some street punks, we are talking about the heads of a criminal empire. They were set free. Why? Because of the following.
The police got condemning evidence by wire tapping their phones. These guys were guilty, no doubt about it. I do not know the laws in the US, but in my country an officer has to give clearance on a phone tap. The officer did give the clearance, but did not sign the form.
... did not sign the form. He gave clearance, the bad guys did it, but he did not sign the form. The whole case was thrown out and very, very dangerous criminals walked free on that technicality. All the lawyer did was advice his clients to exert their rights. But the result of that is, dangerous criminals walked free.
Sorry for the long post, and obviously you cannot - nor do I demand - give your opinion on this specific case that obviously is more complex than I can type out in a youtube comment section. I just used it to try and make my point of view more clear: a criminal is a criminal, and punishment needs to be given. I could not in good conscience give a criminal advice knowing this will avoid punishment.
And finally, I am not saying criminals do not need a defense. If anything, they need it more than anyone else. All I am saying is, there is a difference between getting a milder yet just punishment, and no punishment at all.
@@allasar You're right. We probably won't agree on this point though we may find many other points to agree on.
Personally, I believe that 10 guilty men should go free rather than convict even 1 innocent man.
Those "technicalities" are what help us to avoid convicting those innocent persons even if it means that some guilty ones go free.
yep, oj
What about perjury? Presumably, the defendant first declared that they were not guilty. If you lie in court, isn't that a crime in itself?
Pleading Not Guilty is never a lie. In fact, all persons are presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty in court.
Reminds me of the Emmett Till case. Back in the early 20th century, where racism and lynching was commonplace, a black boy named Emmett Till was accused of catcalling a white woman. Due to the Jim Crow laws at the time, it was a crime. 2 white men related to the woman kidnapped Emmett and brutally beat him and shot him before attaching a heavy fan and drowning him in a lake. They went to court, and unfortunately, the jury was all white. There was a lot of evidence proving they tortured Emmett, however, after an hour into the case, the jury delivered the verdict. Due to the racism at the time, the two men were not guilty. After a while, the two men confessed to the crime and got away with it due to double jeopardy.
That is certainly a strong argument in favor of allowing Federal prosecution after a State Court acquittal!
Not true at all. Double jeopardy is double jeopardy. I never committed any crime.
This of course is Mathews first law of defense. SHUT THE BLANK UP lol. Let your lawyer talk for you. Thats their job people. And if Mathew is your lawyer he will probably say it better than you could anyway.