February 18, 2017 by Michael Dye

You Have the Right to Remain Silent Fool!

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT | USE IT

Most people view the fifth amendment as a shelter or haven for individuals who have committed a crime. Invoking your right to remain silent is typically viewed as an admission to criminal conduct. After all, if you have nothing to hide in you have nothing to worry about speaking to the police. Right? You couldn’t be more wrong.

10 REASONS TO NEVER SPEAK TO THE POLICE

If the police already have enough evidence to arrest you, they are going to arrest you no matter what you say. If they don’t have enough evidence, you will probably provide them with enough evidence to arrest you………. even if you are innocent.
There is a reason the United States Supreme Court makes police officers warn you that you have a right to remain silent before they ask you questions. It is because speaking to the police is a bad idea nearly 100% of the time………….. even if you are innocent.
The prosecution cannot introduce evidence at a trial concerning you exercising your right to remain silent. The prosecution will cherry pick your worst statements out of context and use them against you in court.
There is no way it can help. I have seen thousands of people talk their way into getting arrested. I have seen one (1) client give a statement and not end up arrested.
If you are guilty, or innocent, you may admit guilt with no benefit in return. If you admit guilt up front, you lose the ability to negotiate a more favorable plea.
Even if you are innocent and only tell the truth, you will always give the police some information that can be used to arrest and convict you.
Even if you are innocent, only tell the truth and say nothing incriminating, there is still a chance that you will be convicted if the police officers do not recall your statements with 100% accuracy.
Even if you are innocent, only tell the truth and say nothing incriminating, there is still a chance that you will be convicted if the police officers do not recall their questions with 100% accuracy.
Even if you are innocent, only tell the truth, say nothing incriminating and your statement is transcribed, audio or video recorded, you can still be convicted if the police have any evidence that any of the statements you made are false. Even the little white lies.
There are over 10,000 pages of federal criminal statutes and thousands of pages of state statutes. There are in an infinite number of factual scenarios where speaking to the police freely might implicate you in some sort of crime that you did not even know existed.

After all that, remember, you have the right to remain silent. Exercise that right.

WHY WAS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CREATED?

The Fifth Amendment was created to protect the innocent, not the guilty. You don’t have to take my word for it, you can take the word of Justice Frankfurter, former associate justice United States Supreme Court. “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.” Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426(1956). “The Fifth Amendment’s basic function[s] … is to protect innocent men … who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. ” See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20(2001).

You Have the right to remain silent. Use it. Refuse to speak with the police without an attorney present. I was admitted to the Florida Bar in 2004. Over the length of my career, I have personally had one (1) client that I allowed to speak to the police during the investigation stage. A colleague of mine has also allowed (1) client to speak to law enforcement during the investigation stage. Our 2 cases are the only 2 that I am aware of where speaking to law enforcement prior to the filing of charges helped the situation. Those were once in a career cases. I know that I’ll never see another like it.

SOURCES

Please note that I stumbled across this topic while doing legal research for a case. I saw a YouTube video by Regent University Law Professor James Duane which is posted above. It was very informative and I would like to generally site to his video as my source for much of the above information contained herein. Although it has always been my opinion, and almost every criminal defense attorney’s position, that you have a right to remain silent and you should use it.

For additional information, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525

Aggressive Criminal Lawyer or Intelligent Criminal Lawyer

October 20, 2016 by Michael Dye

Aggressive Criminal Lawyer and Street Certified Bad Ass*

Searching for an Aggressive Criminal Lawyer

A Google search for “aggressive criminal lawyer” returns 9,780,000 results. A Google search for “intelligent criminal lawyer” returns 651,000 results. Clearly, people associate the term “aggressive” with “good.” Let’s rephrase that. People confuse the term “good criminal lawyer” with “aggressive criminal lawyer.” The two are not always the same. Take a moment to think about this. Would you rather have an aggressive criminal defense attorney or an intelligent criminal defense attorney? An intelligent criminal defense attorney knows when to be aggressive and also knows when to lay off. An aggressive criminal defense attorney who is not intelligent is just a jerk.

Aggressive Marketing

Why do so many criminal defense attorneys call themselves aggressive? It all comes down to money. Law firms are businesses. Attorneys who run the law firms are businessmen. Businessmen want to make money. Businesses advertise using the keywords that people search. More clicks, more clients. More clients, more money.

This post is a pretty good example. The keyword, or phrase, I choose is “aggressive criminal lawyer.” I did not choose “intelligent criminal lawyer” because the word aggressive will get more clicks. That is also why I repeat the phrase “aggressive criminal lawyer.” The search engines will see this post as relevant to “aggressive criminal lawyer” and I will get more clicks. However, while you are here, I figure I should tell you the truth.

Why People Want an Aggressive Lawyer

I’ve tried a lot of cases. However, the majority of my cases do not go to trial. It is that way for every criminal defense attorney. In the cases that go to trial, it is likely my client’s first and last trial experience. Most of my clients have never seen a criminal trial outside of watching a 20-minute murder trial on Law & Order. A lot of people form their opinions based on a fictional television show.

The media typical portrays effective criminal defense attorneys in a negative light. The characters are rude, condescending, abrasive and otherwise jerks. People have been taught that this is effective. They want and even expect to see an attorney verbally pound on a state’s witness. They think that an aggressive criminal lawyer will verbally beat on a witness until they get a “Perry Mason Moment.” A “Perry Mason Moment” is when the defense attorney gives such a horrific verbal beatdown that the witness breaks down and confesses that he is the real culprit rather than continuing with the mental torment of the questioning. It seems pretty cool on TV, but it doesn’t work.

How to Lose a Criminal Trial

The easiest way to lose a criminal trial is to make the jury hate you. The easiest way to make a jury hate you is to unnecessarily “beat up” on witnesses. You want the jury to see me as the most reasonable person in the room.

Some people are going to want an aggressive criminal lawyer no matter what I say. I’ll give you the good news first. There are plenty of attorneys who will give you what you want. Now the bad news. Some of the worst cross-examinations I have ever witnessed ended with the client telling his lawyer “great job!” Usually, the client heard the word “guilty” at the end of the trial. Why did the client say “great job?” Because the attorney was aggressive. That is the same reason he was found guilty. The jury hated the attorney because he was aggressive. He was rude, condescending, abrasive, demeaning, belittling, sarcastic and otherwise a jerk.

Aggressive, Persuasive and Effective

There is a difference between aggressive and effective. Persuasive is effective, aggressive is not. An intelligent attorney knows the difference. Just because an attorney is not aggressive, in the traditional sense, doesn’t mean that he or she is going to roll over and play dead. A persuasive attorney will win more cases than an aggressive attorney.

I am not alone in my thoughts. While doing some research for this post, I came across a blog called Defending People. We seem to have a similar opinion concerning the phrase “aggressive criminal lawyer.” It is better for advertising than the courtroom.

Changing Your Approach

Any attorney who is looking to improve their cross-examination skills needs to read MacCarthy on Cross-Examination. The author, Terence MacCarthy, teaches a simple, extremely effective method of cross-examination that can be used in any type of case and on any type of witness. Mr. MacCarthy is widely regarded as one of the foremost experts on cross-examination and his book explains exactly why aggressive fails and persuasive wins.

Fort Lauderdale criminal attorney, Michael Dye, likes to think of himself as a reasonable and persuasive attorney. Please note that his ex-wife’s opinion may differ. Mr. Dye represents individuals charged with criminal offenses ranging from DUI to murder. For additional information, please contact us at:

The Law Offices of Michael A. Dye, PA, 1 East Broward Boulevard #700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954)990-0525.

* Credit for Picture: Miami Criminal Attorney Michael A. Haber, Esq.