To: ladtx; All
Of course... even if he is innocent, he MUST not say anything, legally, until he knows first IF there will be any charges, and then WHAT the charges are.
There is a neat little trick in the law where evidence admitted to prove one thing can then be used to prove something else -- even if, originally, the evidence would not be allowed for that purpose. Does that make any sense to you? Even if he is innocent, he must not say anything, because his words can be taken and then used (twisted) to prove an unrelated point.
To avoid a legal mess, he must not say anything relevent to the case -- if there is in fact a case -- until he knows exactly what it is "he is dealing with".
To: Darth Reagan
I have yet to see an actual law talking guy (with credit to Lionel Hutz) weigh in on this thread. What say you?
136 posted on
10/03/2003 12:15:07 PM PDT by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson