|
Howard, do you ever teach the "castle doctrine", or is that relevant in your jurisdiction?
FWIW, there is a good reason to not discuss matters until you have talked with an attorney(besides the obvious). In court, rules of evidence are used to either admit or deny the introduction of evidence to the court/jury, whether statements, objects, or other. Hearsay is defined as "an out-of-court statement, made by a person, NOT A PARTY, used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. An admission, on the other hand, is an out-of-court statement made by a party(of course used to prove a matter relevant at trial).
So, when Jack Webb was telling people "you have the right to remain silent, what you say can and will be used against you in a court of law", he was essentially explaining to them that if they are criminally charged, they become a "party" and anything they say, at any relevant time, becomes admissible. The conversation about whether the Miranda warnings are constitutionally proper I will save for a later time, but essentially a failure of a policeman to properly Miranda-ize a criminal defendant often forces a court to throw out relevant admissions made by a criminal defendant.
On the other hand, an out-of-court statement made by a person who is not a party (person not charged or sued) is, generally, hearsay, and inadmissible unless it falls within a few narrow exceptions.
In sum---if you experience an instance where you might be charged or sued, shut up. If you are just a witness, help the cops.
My apologies for the hip-pocket evidence class.
|