What should you do when arrested!

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Only if the evidence is admissible.

that is the point i was making.In that book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent it says that in the USA anything incriminating you say to a police officer is admissable. But anything you say to a police officer which makes you look innocent is not admissable

baalad

Im in court this week and just got a message on facebook from the guard saying "Hi, I can see we meet each other again this week, if you like we can meet up tomorrow to discuss what will happen etc"

Is this normal? Why would i want to meet with him before my case!

Mark25

baalad wrote: »

Im in court this week and just got a message on facebook from the guard saying "Hi, I can see we meet each other again this week, if you like we can meet up tomorrow to discuss what will happen etc"

Is this normal? Why would i want to meet with him before my case!

That seems strange especially on Facebook.

Did you go looking fir him? Hadca Garda call me aboyt a case but I rang looking for him abd he rang me back abd met him outside of the court but nothibg like thst.

baalad

Mark25 wrote: »

That seems strange especially on Facebook.

Did you go looking fir him? Hadca Garda call me aboyt a case but I rang looking for him abd he rang me back abd met him outside of the court but nothibg like thst.

To be fair we had communicated through facebook before! He is friends with a friend of mine. (not someone i would know extremely well but a facebook friend none the less)

I did not ask to speak with him or anything though so not sure why or what there is to discuss! Would this be considered normal/lawful for a guard to want to have a chat before a court case?

Seems a little odd to me!

Peregrinus

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

that is the point i was making.In that book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent it says that in the USA anything incriminating you say to a police officer is admissable. But anything you say to a police officer which makes you look innocent is not admissable

If that's what it says in the book, burn the book immediately. It's lying to you.

Atlantic Dawn

baalad wrote: »

Im in court this week and just got a message on facebook from the guard saying "Hi, I can see we meet each other again this week, if you like we can meet up tomorrow to discuss what will happen etc"

Is this normal? Why would i want to meet with him before my case!

Where do you fit in to the court case, are you the accused, are you the victim, or a witness etc etc?

imfml

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Where do you fit in to the court case, are you the accused, are you the victim, or a witness etc etc?

Why, which one would make it appropriate for the guard to make contact via Facebook?

baalad

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Where do you fit in to the court case, are you the accused, are you the victim, or a witness etc etc?

I am the accused. I was over the limit for cannabis by 1 nanogram.

I was told at the time of arrest that the limit was zero and as a result i pretty much said ok if the limit is zero then im certainly going to be over the limit etc and i virtually pleaded guilty there and then before any test was carried out!

It later transpired that i was given incorrect information. The limit is 5 nanograms not 0! I was also told i would only receive a 6 month ban which was again false information.

Now obviously all that matters is that the blood results show i was over by 1 nanogram but my solicitor is suggesting we may be able to challenge the court on the basis that my statement was impacted by the false information i was been given. I also have proof of this via messages also!

However, The guard thinks that im going to just walk in to court this week and plead guilty because i already admitted guilt but after speaking with a solicitor i feel that i was pleading guilty based on the information i was being told which turned out to be lies basically!.

If i meet the guard like he is asking me to do then im not sure what he wants to discuss nor do i feel comfortable letting him know that i plan to challenge the case!

Some of the facebook messages i have from him include him saying "he hates doing people for cannabis especially when he can tell they are good people" He also speaks about his personal life and tells me he has a mortage and that his kids are the best thing that ever happened to him etc and in another message he tells me that the cannabis limit is zero and that i will receive a ban between 2-4 years which iam told is not true. The night he arrested me he told me 6 months!

Not sure if any of that is relevant to the court! The fact remains i was indeed over the limit. Tiny amount over the limit but over none the less so i fear none of this will matter. I will find out in due course

Peregrinus

This is all a bit weird. As you already have a solicitor you should definitely discuss this with him before responding in any way at all to the guard.

And, um, it's sufficiently weird that you might want to stop posting about it in a public forum.

baalad

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is all a bit weird. As you already have a solicitor you should definitely discuss this with him before responding in any way at all to the guard.

And, um, it's sufficiently weird that you might want to stop posting about it in a public forum.

Yeah im conscious of that! Maybe i shouldn't but i highely doubt what i post here is going to somehow make its way to this guard / the court case.

I am only explaining my situation and seeking advice at the end of the day!

Treppen

baalad wrote: »

Yeah im conscious of that! Maybe i shouldn't but i highely doubt what i post here is going to somehow make its way to this guard / the court case.

I am only explaining my situation and seeking advice at the end of the day!

I think peregrine's has tricked you into admitting you're seeking advice. I think what you meant to say (as legal advice in not allowed here) is that you were seeking to have a discussion.

Vikings

You said you had exchanged messages with this guard prior to being stopped/arrested by him?

If that is accurate it would appear on the face of it that he is trying to help you through what can be a very stressful process for people. Some people do it without legal advice and look to the guard for guidance on how the process usually works.

This is a drug driving case. What you said to the guard on the night you were arrested will not have any impact on the prosecution. The proofs are essentially in the pudding. The level of drugs in your blood and the fact you were driving and possibly the manner of your driving - depending on checkpoint or an open road stop.

Best in mind this is not the guard taking you to court. The guard is a witness. At hearing a solicitor from the DPP will be prosecuting and the guard will be a witness. You will have a solicitor/barrister defending and you will be a witness.

The guard is a human being, possibly an acquaintance of yours before all this and he may want to remain an acquaintance of yours after this and not make things awkward for either you, him, or the mutual friend.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Peregrinus wrote: »

If that's what it says in the book, burn the book immediately. It's lying to you.

you know more than James Duane? It is about the USA. Here is what it says:

What if you give information to a police officer or any other individual thatyou think might support your claim of innocence? Will that person beallowed to share that information with the judge or the jury at your trial? Theanswer will surprise you: no, almost certainly not—not unless it hurts yourcase. Once the case gets to trial, as you know from television, the police andother witnesses are not allowed to share all the information in theirpossession—not even if they wanted to do so—because they are subject to acollection of rules known as the law of evidence. Those rules define certainkinds of information that are inadmissible, and which therefore cannot berevealed to the judge or the jurors who are deciding the case. And one of themost famous of those rules is the law of hearsay, which generally preventsthe police from telling the judge about information that they have heard fromother witnesses—including of course the defendant. So even if your lawyerasks the police officer to tell the jury the “helpful things” you told the policeto support your claim of innocence, the prosecutor will object, and the judgwill usually refuse to allow the officer to answer the question.


But it gets even worse than that. Unfortunately for the defendant, there
is a major exception to the hearsay rule in every state and federal court,
which does in fact allow the police officer to tell the jury about a statementmade by the defendant, or about any portion of his statement, but only if thatinformation is used against the defendant at the request of a prosecutor whois trying to prove the defendant’s guilt. If a prosecutor asks the officer to tell the jury about portions of the defendant’s statement that can be used to help persuade the jury of the accused’s guilt, the defendant’s lawyer cannot object that this is hearsay, and the testimony will be allowed. But nothing you tell the police will be of any value to your lawyer at the trial. That is just one more reason why the police know they are lying when they tell you or your
frightened child, “I just want to help you.”

hullaballoo

That's effectively disinformation imo.

Exculpatory statements are not automatically excluded in the same way inculpatory statements are not automatically included in evidence.

I am not an American jurist but if that's an accurate representation of the law of evidence there, all the more reason to think of it as the laughing stock of the world.

mynamejeff

baalad wrote: »

Yeah im conscious of that! Maybe i shouldn't but i highely doubt what i post here is going to somehow make its way to this guard / the court case.

I am only explaining my situation and seeking advice at the end of the day!

or the garda considers you a friend and is doing his best to make whole thing as painless as possible,

the laws re drink and drug driving change all the time and gardai have no say in that,

if you don't wan contact with the garda just say so and meet your solicitor before the case ,

im sure you ll be unfriended and needn't worry about it after that ,

its not the kgb

mynamejeff

Henrik Agreeable Smoothness wrote: »

that is the point i was making.In that book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent it says that in the USA anything incriminating you say to a police officer is admissable. But anything you say to a police officer which makes you look innocent is not admissable

this is not true ,

even in America and most certainly in Ireland

baalad

Vikings wrote: »

You said you had exchanged messages with this guard prior to being stopped/arrested by him?

If that is accurate it would appear on the face of it that he is trying to help you through what can be a very stressful process for people. Some people do it without legal advice and look to the guard for guidance on how the process usually works.

This is a drug driving case. What you said to the guard on the night you were arrested will not have any impact on the prosecution. The proofs are essentially in the pudding. The level of drugs in your blood and the fact you were driving and possibly the manner of your driving - depending on checkpoint or an open road stop.

Best in mind this is not the guard taking you to court. The guard is a witness. At hearing a solicitor from the DPP will be prosecuting and the guard will be a witness. You will have a solicitor/barrister defending and you will be a witness.

The guard is a human being, possibly an acquaintance of yours before all this and he may want to remain an acquaintance of yours after this and not make things awkward for either you, him, or the mutual friend.

No, messages were only exchanged after arrest!

My solicitor is refusing to advise me also. He implied that you cannot trust a guard to help you and that i should be careful but ultimately its up to me if i want to meet with him or not.

Credit Checker Moose

Your solicitor is right. The Garda cannot be trusted.

baalad

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Your solicitor is right. The Garda cannot be trusted.

What could he possibly do or say though?

My blood results were over the limit so he has all the evidence he needs. What more could he want?

baalad

Met with him tonight. Seems like he wants to help but at the same time a few things seemed strange and i am not used to these dealings with the law because i have never been in trouble before so no idea what to think!

Basically i have been told that indeed im only a small bit over the limit for cannabis which was unfortunate he said. He also said that he was about to head back to the station that night and if i was 1 minute later i would not have been met with that checkpoint.

Then he went on to say he has never lost a court case. He said he wants to help me and will make one of the charges go away (he referenced travelling etc so he was clearly referring to a criminal conviction) How can it be his decision to make that go away??

He also said i was going to be charged for possession even though nowhere on the summons does it state that and what was found was literally some dust in the end of a bag. Literally just residue but thats enough for a possession charge apparently.

He told me that the judge is lenient lately and he was clearly hinting that it was in my best interests to plead guilty without actually saying it. He said the court would appreciate a guilty plea so they can move on to the next case and so on rather then dragging a case on.

He also said to tell me solicitor (who he says he knows very well) to contact him so they could "negotiate"

Thoughts? None of this can be proven of course because its all he said, she said!!

Claw Hammer

baalad wrote: »

What could he possibly do or say though?

My blood results were over the limit so he has all the evidence he needs. What more could he want?

He has to prove his case. He has to prove you were the person driving for example, that it happened at a particular time, in a public place and the sample was taken within 3 hours of driving. He may have a gap in his proofs which an admission from you could fill.

Stephen Gawking

baalad wrote: »

Met with him tonight. Seems like he wants to help but at the same time a few things seemed strange and i am not used to these dealings with the law because i have never been in trouble before so no idea what to think!

Basically i have been told that indeed im only a small bit over the limit for cannabis which was unfortunate he said. He also said that he was about to head back to the station that night and if i was 1 minute later i would not have been met with that checkpoint.

Then he went on to say he has never lost a court case. He said he wants to help me and will make one of the charges go away (he referenced travelling etc so he was clearly referring to a criminal conviction) How can it be his decision to make that go away??

He also said i was going to be charged for possession even though nowhere on the summons does it state that and what was found was literally some dust in the end of a bag. Literally just residue but thats enough for a possession charge apparently.

He told me that the judge is lenient lately and he was clearly hinting that it was in my best interests to plead guilty without actually saying it. He said the court would appreciate a guilty plea so they can move on to the next case and so on rather then dragging a case on.

He also said to tell me solicitor (who he says he knows very well) to contact him so they could "negotiate"

Thoughts? None of this can be proven of course because its all he said, she said!!

Best thing you can do is stop posting. That gard is not your friend. He's full of it & he's afraid his misleading statements will come out. As for your solicitor, get a new one. Refusing to advise you is not within his/her purview.

baalad

Stephen Gawking wrote: »

Best thing you can do is stop posting. That gard is not your friend. He's full of it & he's afraid his misleading statements will come out. As for your solicitor, get a new one. Refusing to advise you is not within his/her purview.

With all due respect , I agree somewhat but this solicitor has a good reputation. However, i did find it odd that he did not advise me and told me "its up to you" with regards to meeting the Guard.

The guard certainly came across as trying to be helpful although i am skeptical and do not understand how he can say to me "I will make one of the charges disappear"

Iam under pressure now because i have no idea if i should plead guilty ( if the guard is being honest with me and saying i will avoid a criminal conviction) or if i should proceed to ask for evidence.

The guard instructed me to tell me solicitor to "talk with him" so they can "negotiate"

No lies been told here so i do not see how what iam saying here can harm my case. Highely doubt the Guard or the judge is on boards reading thi

Mod
I have spent a lot of time in courts - up on 40 years. The Garda's attitude is unusual. He may just be soft-hearted, or may not have his proofs in order. As your solicitor to check with other solicitors in that area who may know his form.
afaik judges do not read this forum. Some Gardaí do

Stephen Gawking

baalad wrote: »

With all due respect , I agree somewhat but this solicitor has a good reputation. However, i did find it odd that he did not advise me and told me "its up to you" with regards to meeting the Guard.

The guard certainly came across as trying to be helpful although i am skeptical and do not understand how he can say to me "I will make one of the charges disappear" I am not suggesting you do anything of the sort but i know what i wouldndo if i were in your shoes given my own personal experiences with the gardai.

Iam under pressure now because i have no idea if i should plead guilty ( if the guard is being honest with me and saying i will avoid a criminal conviction) or if i should proceed to ask for evidence.

The guard instructed me to tell me solicitor to "talk with him" so they can "negotiate"

No lies been told here so i do not see how what iam saying here can harm my case. Highely doubt the Guard or the judge is on boards reading this

The only reason that Sgt Maurice McCabe wasn't successfully labelled as a paedophile is because he recorded certain conversations covertly. Its the only reason the general public came to know of the torment he & his family endured. He knew what he had to do to protect himself when no one else in authority would including a justice minister.

Newuser2

What happens if you sign something when you're drunk?

Peregrinus

Newuser2 wrote: »

What happens if you sign something when you're drunk?

Your signature may be wobbly.

Beyond that, if you're asking whether your drunken condition has any effect on the validity or efficacy of whatever document it is that you signed - that depends entirely on what it that you signed, what effect or signficance it is supposed to have, and how drunk you were when you signed it.

mynamejeff

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your signature may be wobbly.

Beyond that, if you're asking whether your drunken condition has any effect on the validity or efficacy of whatever document it is that you signed - that depends entirely on what it that you signed, what effect or signficance it is supposed to have, and how drunk you were when you signed it.

interesting question though .


the section 17 ( I think ) statement for drink driving for instance , the print out of results from the machine. there is two copies and you are meant to sign one.
if you don't sign it there's an additional charge but if you've just blown way over and are clearly pissed are you still expected to understand and sign it ?

Peregrinus

mynamejeff wrote: »

interesting question though .


the section 17 ( I think ) statement for drink driving for instance , the print out of results from the machine. there is two copies and you are meant to sign one.
if you don't sign it there's an additional charge but if you've just blown way over and are clearly pissed are you still expected to understand and sign it ?

You're not required to understand the s. 17 statement - you sign just to acknowledge that you have been given a copy of it.

If you subsequently give evidence, say, that you were drunk and have no recollection of signing the statementm, then (a) admitting that you were drunk won't really help any defence you might be offering to a charge of drink driving, and (b) the court will just say "well, did you receive the statement?" And, if your evidence is that you have no recollection of receiving the statement and or of ever having been in possession of a copy of it, the court wil reckon that that's not really conclusive evidence of whether you were given it or not, since by your own account you were so drunk at the time as to be unable to recollect anything. if necessary the guard who gave you the statement can testify that, yes, he gave it to you and, yes, you signed in front of him and, yes, that blurry scrawl is the mark you made and, yes, he is also in a position to account for the faint whiff of vomit emanating from the document, if that would be of any assistance to the court.