Importance of hiring a lawyer

[kgeaux]

O.K. peeps this my first thread, so bear with me.
We have all, or most of seen the videos, on the importance of not talking with LE or hiring a lawyer.
There are a lot of people involved in this case who have talked to LE and have not hired a lawyer, as far as we know. Thus far, as far as we know, have not been singled out as looking like a POI, only 2 people. My question why have all these other people talked with LE and not hired lawyers? When their chances of LE suspecting them of being involved were just as great as anyone.

I'm not sure if you've ever read the cases that Project Innocence has been involved with, but it is apparently not impossible for innocent people to be railroaded into guilty verdicts.

I "might" talk to LE without representation one time, but if I felt that they were suspicious of me, if they hinted they thought I was guilty of anything, I'd end the interview and hire a lawyer pronto. That might make some people think I was guilty, but it really would just mean that I wanted someone to guide me through the legal system.

BTW, thank you so much for using the terminology "hired a lawyer" instead of "lawyered up." Your wording simply states a fact without drawing any conclusion as to motivation, whereas the term "lawyered up" has a negative connotation.

I mostly agree. However, even if the questions were "where were YOU at 9am on June 4th"...if I knew my alibi was iron-clad and easily/quickly verifiable (I was at work, in a meeting with 6 other people, for example)...I'd skip the lawyer. But if was, say, driving around aimlessly at that time...yeah, I'd be calling an atty pretty darn quick!

There were at least two men on death row who had iron clad alibis with multiple witnesses stating that they were far from the scene of the crime they were convicted of. Sometimes LE decides that the witnesses are "mistaken" and they arrest and prosecute an innocent person. As I said earlier, I'd probably show up without a lawyer for an initial interview, but as an innocent person, no way would I go back for "followup" interviews, and I wouldn't even complete the initial interview if I felt it was heading in a direction that was not in my best interests.

Having legal representation is a legally guaranteed constitutional right for those of us who live in USA, and it is really sad that exercising that right has become a red flag in some eyes.

 

[Billylee]

I don't think Terry talked to an attorney the day Kaine took the baby. I think when she called 911 they told her Kaine had the legal right to take what was also legally his, the baby.

Ah yes, you may be right. But it was the same day she was served the RO right? Anyway, my original point was that was the day she hired the attorney, was after she was served the RO, and interestingly she did not hire one earlier than that, even though she was being questioned over and over, and had allegedly failed LDT's and was be crucified in blogs. Just interesting to me that she waited until then.

 

[TxLady2]

I agree with you ~ innocent people don't automatically lawyer-up as a rule.

I realize many others see this differently, though. However, I see no reason why anyone innocent would want to withhold information about a missing child when they could possibly help. I find it selfish in the extreme.

I have talked to police before about different things without a lawyer present and had no problem with it. I don't think innocent people have anything to fear from the police.

I don't see the police as my enemy - most people will call the police when they are in trouble without hesitation, so why not cooperate when it can help someone else?

JMOO

But there have been a few cases where LE zeroed in on the parent of a missing or murdered child, and refused to look at anyone else. In a few cases, the parent has been charged and actually spent time in jail, only to find out later they had nothing to do with it.
Thankfully, this doesn't happen in every case and it's rare. But it does happen.
I would get a lawyer if I thought I was being railroaded. But I would still cooperate with LE, because that makes a difference in how they treat you.

 

[wondering1]

Agreed. But if you look at Terri's text to a friend, which was about an hour after her email that day to KH she says something like "and guess what, it's legal", where she's NOW referring to the fact that KH taking babyK away is legal. I think that is the first time TH talked to an attorney, after KH took the baby away. I think she hired Houze, when she was served the RO. Wasn't it all the same day?

I agree with jo in ca about where she got the info that KH taking baby was legal. I posted a while ago about it, but the short version is that LE gets those kinds of custodial interference calls all the time and they will tell you exactly what TH e-mailed to her friend.

iirc he took baby on Sat. and filed the RO on Monday.

 

[rnmif]

Maybe they like to live dangerously?

More likely, when they were questioned, the questions were all pointed at what each witness saw other people doing. I'm a big believer in consulting with a lawyer but I'm also practical: the money tree has not yet sprouted in my back yard. So until or unless the questioning turned to "and can you tell me what YOU were doing at 9 am 4 June?" I probably wouldn't consult a lawyer.

The instant the questions started pointing at my own actions is the point at which I, personally, would feel the cost/benefit ratio tip towards consulting a lawyer.

But I can't speak for anyone else.

LE also have limited resources. If this case has predicated on statistical probability, well then TH was the most likely suspect. More so than bio parents, and certainly more than TY.

If TH had not been the one to take Kyron to school, I think this case would have gone in an entirely different direction (whether right or not).

 

[Jo in Calif]

I agree with Cypress.

In Kyron's case, remember Kaine was consulting the Intel attorney he had access to almost immediately. Terri didn't get her own lawyer until Kaine took BabyK away, which I found interesting, because she had allegedly already failed numerous LDT's, had repeated her story over and over to LE and was being highly suspected in the media. I also agree that DS was most likely advised by her father to lawyer up.

I believe that consulting and retaining are pretty far apart. IMO

 

[wondering1]

Ah yes, you may be right. But it was the same day she was served the RO right? Anyway, my original point was that was the day she hired the attorney, was after she was served the RO, and interestingly she did not hire one earlier than that, even though she was being questioned over and over, and had allegedly failed LDT's and was be crucified in blogs. Just interesting to me that she waited until then.

iirc, KH took baby on sat. the 26th, the RO was filed on monday the 28th, and TH was first reported to have hired Houze on Thursday July 1. I'm guessing she got the ball rolling on Monday and hired Houze officially on Wed. or Thurs.

 

[wondering1]

I believe that consulting and retaining are pretty far apart. IMO

also, I thought someone with a reason to know posted that Intel lawyers would not have given KH advise on any criminal or family law matter beyond a referral to the appropriate attorney. I would totally agree that that would be the case. No way, no how in-house counsel would get directly involved in something like that imo beyond what they needed to do to protect the company imo.

 

[debs]

Anything past "I want to speak to my attorney." will never help you. It is the way the justice system has become, that the presumption of guilt is assumed when one applies the rights that were granted by the Constitution. It is up to the State to prove you are guilty; there is nothing which says you must help them do so.

 

[Jo in Calif]

LE also have limited resources. If this case has predicated on statistical probability, well then TH was the most likely suspect. More so than bio parents, and certainly more than TY.

If TH had not been the one to take Kyron to school, I think this case would have gone in an entirely different direction (whether right or not).

I'm sure if Kyron had of taken the bus that day, and disappeared, and Terry not have even been at the school. You can bet this would have taken a different direction.

 

[rnmif]

I'm sure if Kyron had of taken the bus that day, and disappeared, and Terry not have even been at the school. You can bet this would have taken a different direction.

Yah, Terri has the grave misfortune to fall into two categories of likely suspects, stepparent, and last person to see.... That's not a nice junction to be standing in.

Does that mean she's guilty? No. Does that mean she's innocent? No.

Confirmation bias and the known errors/flaws in our legal system just make me a tad... cautious.

 

[kappy50]

I believe that consulting and retaining are pretty far apart. IMO

I don't think he was doing either....cbw

 

[cluciano63]

I might well hire a lawyer if I was innocent and targeted by LE in a felony...but if I had "stashed" a child in order to protect that child from harm and could retrieve him at any time...I'd still hire that attorney but have him reveal the facts to LE at once. And Terri hired an attorney 2 months ago or more... so where is Kyron?

 

[JBean]

Don't forget that the spirit of the 5th amendment is to protect the innocent.

In Ullman v US [350 US 422 (1956)] the US Supreme Court said, "This
constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even
those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too
readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming
the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a
condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States." In Ohio v Reiner [532 US
17 (2001)] the US Supreme Court said, "This Court has never held, however, that the privilege is
unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of
the Fifth Amend-ment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be​

ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

http://www.stuartshowalter.com/resources/Right+to+remain+silent.pdf



I do not know if TH is guilty or innocent, but she does have the right to say nothing.

 

[SmoothOperator]

LE also have limited resources. If this case has predicated on statistical probability, well then TH was the most likely suspect. More so than bio parents, and certainly more than TY.

If TH had not been the one to take Kyron to school, I think this case would have gone in an entirely different direction (whether right or not).

Above BBM. I, too agree with the above statement but for completely different reasons.[i.e. if Terri had not taken him to school, nor been present in or around Skyline on June 4th then IMO Kyron would now be anxiously anticipating his soon upcoming first day of third grade..]

 

[bessie]

Don't forget that the spirit of the 5th amendment is to protect the innocent.

In Ullman v US [350 US 422 (1956)] the US Supreme Court said, "This
constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even
those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too
readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming
the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a
condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States." In Ohio v Reiner [532 US
17 (2001)] the US Supreme Court said, "This Court has never held, however, that the privilege is
unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of
the Fifth Amend-ment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be​

ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

http://www.stuartshowalter.com/resources/Right+to+remain+silent.pdf



I do not know if TH is guilty or innocent, but she does have the right to say nothing.

Thank you, JBean! That reminder cannot be posted often enough around here, IMO.

 

[bessie]

I would probably answer general, on-the-spot questions regarding anything I might've seen or heard. It would depend on the circumstances and how far removed I was, personally, from the crime. I'd do my best to have an attorney present for any subsequent interviews to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth, though, even if I was flat broke and had to rely on my cousin Vinnie.

 

[PDXMom]

Don't forget that the spirit of the 5th amendment is to protect the innocent.

In Ullman v US [350 US 422 (1956)] the US Supreme Court said, "This
constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even
those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too
readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming
the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a
condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States." In Ohio v Reiner [532 US
17 (2001)] the US Supreme Court said, "This Court has never held, however, that the privilege is
unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of
the Fifth Amend-ment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be​

ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

http://www.stuartshowalter.com/resources/Right+to+remain+silent.pdf



I do not know if TH is guilty or innocent, but she does have the right to say nothing.

I concur with Bessie. This is a great reminder and has given me some much needed perspective here.

 

[bessie]

Anything past "I want to speak to my attorney." will never help you. It is the way the justice system has become, that the presumption of guilt is assumed when one applies the rights that were granted by the Constitution. It is up to the State to prove you are guilty; there is nothing which says you must help them do so.

That's not the way the justice system has become. The justice system has undergone relatively little change in 220 years or so. It's the way society has become as a result of expansive media coverage and the internet. In general, however, I don't think anyone is presumed guilty simply because he hires an attorney. Where it might seem that way, there are usually questionable circumstances attached.

Nevertheless, we're free to presume whatever the heck we want. The only opinions that matter are those of the jurors, and juries rarely consider the point in time a defendant hired her attorney, if they're even privy to that information.

 

[Kat010]

Don't forget that the spirit of the 5th amendment is to protect the innocent.

In Ullman v US [350 US 422 (1956)] the US Supreme Court said, "This
constitutional protection must not be interpreted in a hostile or niggardly spirit. Too many, even
those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too
readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming
the privilege. Such a view does scant honor to the patriots who sponsored the Bill of Rights as a
condition to acceptance of the Constitution by the ratifying States." In Ohio v Reiner [532 US
17 (2001)] the US Supreme Court said, "This Court has never held, however, that the privilege is
unavailable to those who claim innocence. To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of
the Fifth Amend-ment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be​

ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

http://www.stuartshowalter.com/resources/Right+to+remain+silent.pdf



I do not know if TH is guilty or innocent, but she does have the right to say nothing.

A worthy reminder, thank you!

And, Bean also shared links to two great videos, one by a defense attorney and the other by a cop, about why you shouldn't talk to cops without a lawyer:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related[/ame]