Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt
-
BTW... I asked a cop about how statements of this nature would matter when made to a cop when you've been arrested and just waiting to hear what he thinks about it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy."Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity," This part right here is what makes me think that an officers testimony, as Scott describes, would be dismissed as hearsay.
Unless in the interrogation they specifically asked if there was child pornography and he said "we both know there is", which is NOT what happened, then his statement sounds awfully ambiguous.
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.
That's the thing, he didn't actually admit to it. His statement about "we all know what's on there" is ambiguous. Like I said early, the defense could say he meant his embarrassing cosplay pics, or literally anything else.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
How you think I said anything related to that is confusing. I never spoke about him giving up his password, only that they didn't need his password since they had his admission already.
It's incriminating to the point that, they have charged him with something and as a defendant he cannot be force to incriminate himself in additional crimes.
It's the DOJ's job to get into the system by breaking the encryption or by the defendant willfully giving up his password.
You're missing the fact that he's been charged with something, the police want to charge him with potential other things that they SUSPECT he's done, but cannot prove with the evidence from his computer.
I think they want to get in to catch others he's been sending it to. The more the better.
-
The question is simple.
Do you have to give up your password to your personal computing device, because you're suspected of committing a crime?
Answer: No
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).
Part three doesn't matter, because you don't have cross examination when someone has admitted to guilt.
Same with the second part, that's bypassed.
The first part is where it might matter. I doubt oath is necessary, any on the spot claim of guilt is normally accepted in court. That's the same situation that lets a cop shoot you ... if you run into a room and say you are about to kill someone or in the middle of killing someone, they really can just shoot you to stop you. They don't need to wait to see it happen. This is slightly different, but related. Not being under oath seems a bizarre thing for a court to not accept a plea of guilty.
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
-
@Obsolesce said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
I think they want to get in to catch others he's been sending it to. The more the better.
You're making a assumption here, all we know if the guy said it would be worse for him, not others.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hearsay
In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy."Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity," This part right here is what makes me think that an officers testimony, as Scott describes, would be dismissed as hearsay.
Unless in the interrogation they specifically asked if there was child pornography and he said "we both know there is", which is NOT what happened, then his statement sounds awfully ambiguous.
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.
That's the thing, he didn't actually admit to it. His statement about "we all know what's on there" is ambiguous. Like I said early, the defense could say he meant his embarrassing cosplay pics, or literally anything else.
But didn't say that the defense knew what was there, but that the cops did. It's not ambiguous once the cops state what was there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).
Part three doesn't matter, because you don't have cross examination when someone has admitted to guilt.
Same with the second part, that's bypassed.
The first part is where it might matter. I doubt oath is necessary, any on the spot claim of guilt is normally accepted in court. That's the same situation that lets a cop shoot you ... if you run into a room and say you are about to kill someone or in the middle of killing someone, they really can just shoot you to stop you. They don't need to wait to see it happen. This is slightly different, but related. Not being under oath seems a bizarre thing for a court to not accept a plea of guilty.
In a silly example...
"I did it your honor, I murdered him."
"Okay son, but I can't accept your guilt until you are under oath."
"Oh, I won't admit to it under oath."
"Then I'm afraid you are free to go."
You keep proposing different scenarios, like murders and eating sandwiches, instead of sticking to the actual conversation. Sure, what your saying makes sense in those scenarios, but this isn't that.
Anybody testifying about what was on the computer doesn't have first hand knowledge of it, except the defendant.
-
Only in cases where evidence is going to be destroyed (like with a DUI) can the police force / compel you to comply and give up evidence.
Police can forcibly withdraw your blood if they believe you've been driving while drunk.
In this case, there is no declared expectation that the evidence is going to be destroyed if the computer isn't used for some time or the user account isn't logged into.
The police need to brute force their way in, they cannot force / compel the defendant to provide evidence against themselves in this case.
This is really straight forward.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).
Part three doesn't matter, because you don't have cross examination when someone has admitted to guilt.
Same with the second part, that's bypassed.
The first part is where it might matter. I doubt oath is necessary, any on the spot claim of guilt is normally accepted in court. That's the same situation that lets a cop shoot you ... if you run into a room and say you are about to kill someone or in the middle of killing someone, they really can just shoot you to stop you. They don't need to wait to see it happen. This is slightly different, but related. Not being under oath seems a bizarre thing for a court to not accept a plea of guilty.
You're ignoring the "Ambiguity" part that I specifically referenced.
-
@Obsolesce said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@DustinB3403 said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
How you think I said anything related to that is confusing. I never spoke about him giving up his password, only that they didn't need his password since they had his admission already.
It's incriminating to the point that, they have charged him with something and as a defendant he cannot be force to incriminate himself in additional crimes.
It's the DOJ's job to get into the system by breaking the encryption or by the defendant willfully giving up his password.
You're missing the fact that he's been charged with something, the police want to charge him with potential other things that they SUSPECT he's done, but cannot prove with the evidence from his computer.
I think they want to get in to catch others he's been sending it to. The more the better.
Right, that's valid. If they suspect evidence from others, or more evidence than suspected, certainly getting in is better than not getting in.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).
Part three doesn't matter, because you don't have cross examination when someone has admitted to guilt.
Same with the second part, that's bypassed.
The first part is where it might matter. I doubt oath is necessary, any on the spot claim of guilt is normally accepted in court. That's the same situation that lets a cop shoot you ... if you run into a room and say you are about to kill someone or in the middle of killing someone, they really can just shoot you to stop you. They don't need to wait to see it happen. This is slightly different, but related. Not being under oath seems a bizarre thing for a court to not accept a plea of guilty.
You're ignoring the "Ambiguity" part that I specifically referenced.
I'm not, I'm stating where I feel the ambiguity is removed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.Defendant: "We all know I eat"
Officer: "He ate a sandwich on november 3rd, he said I know that he eats, so I can testify that this is what he ate, even though I didn't actually see him eating a sandwich on that date"
Court: "Umm..... no" -
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Anybody testifying about what was on the computer doesn't have first hand knowledge of it, except the defendant.
And it is the defendant who testified. That's my point. He testified that what the cops are going to claim is actually there. So when they claim child porn, he has already agreed to it.
That's why I used "power of attorney" here as the example. You give away the decision making power ahead of time, rather than after the fact. A stupid thing for him to do, clearly. But just admitting to the crime at all is pretty dumb to do. That it is foolish isn't a factor.
I'm just saying that he has first had knowledge AND is the culprit, which changes the requirements, and there is no ambiguity because of him giving the power to disambiguate to the cops.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.Defendant: "We all know I eat"
Officer: "He ate a sandwich on november 3rd, he said I know that he eats, so I can testify that this is what he ate, even though I didn't actually see him eating a sandwich on that date"
Court: "Umm..... no"No, it's like this.
Defendant: "I ate and the cop there on the stand knows what it was that I ate, his knowledge is accurate."
Officer under oath: "He had a ham and swiss."
Court: "Okay" -
The subject line of this fork is completed fucked.
It should be "Can you be compelled to give up your credentials to an encrypted device based on a suspicion of additional crimes being committed?"
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.Defendant: "We all know I eat"
Officer: "He ate a sandwich on november 3rd, he said I know that he eats, so I can testify that this is what he ate, even though I didn't actually see him eating a sandwich on that date"
Court: "Umm..... no"No, it's like this.
Defendant: "I ate and the cop there on the stand knows what it was that I ate, his knowledge is accurate."
Officer under oath: "He had a ham and swiss."
Court: "Okay"No, not at all. He didn't say "anything the police say is on my computer is there"... you're wearing me out here. He made an ambiguous statement about what's there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.Defendant: "We all know I eat"
Officer: "He ate a sandwich on november 3rd, he said I know that he eats, so I can testify that this is what he ate, even though I didn't actually see him eating a sandwich on that date"
Court: "Umm..... no"No, it's like this.
Defendant: "I ate and the cop there on the stand knows what it was that I ate, his knowledge is accurate."
Officer under oath: "He had a ham and swiss."
Court: "Okay"Wrong.
It's actually like
Defendant: I eat, and the cop saw me eating. The cop walked up and saw me eating, he found I had a stolen candy bar and attempted to compelle me to admitting that the sandwich I was eating was also stolen, but had no proof that I stole the sandwich"
Cop: Yeah. . . I mean I did actually only suspect he stole the sandwich and have no proof that he hadn't actually paid for it or made it himself.
Court: okay cops, go get some actually evidence before I get pissed off and hold the police in contempt of court.
-
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.Defendant: "We all know I eat"
Officer: "He ate a sandwich on november 3rd, he said I know that he eats, so I can testify that this is what he ate, even though I didn't actually see him eating a sandwich on that date"
Court: "Umm..... no"No, it's like this.
Defendant: "I ate and the cop there on the stand knows what it was that I ate, his knowledge is accurate."
Officer under oath: "He had a ham and swiss."
Court: "Okay"No, not at all. He didn't say "anything the police say is on my computer is there"... you're wearing me out here. He made an ambiguous statement about what's there.
I'm not trying to wear you out. I'm just trying to point out that your claim to ambiguity hinges on that "we both know what is on there" does not mean anything, and I feel that telling the cop under a situation of extreme clarity as to why the cop is asking that he does indeed know what is on there is very clear.
There are points as to why I feel it is not ambiguous...
- Presumably he knows exactly why he's being arrested and asked for the password.
- He knows what is on there.
- He tells the cop that what they think is on there is what is on there under a condition where the seems to be no reasonable doubt as to what he meant.
Under other conditions where one of those points doesn't exist, I would agree that his statement would be ambiguous. But under what we believe to be the situation, to me it seems anything but. It's crystal clear that he knew, they knew, and he admitted to exactly that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@bnrstnr said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
@scottalanmiller said in Is Admitting That Someone's Suspicion of Guilt Is Correct Constitute Admission of Guilt:
Agreed, in general. My argument would be that there is a difference between a witness of a crime, and an admission to a crime. Heresay feels like a weird thing to claim against someone's admission of their own activities.
Maybe it's a bad word in this case. But imagine this discussion...
"I ate the sandwich."
"That's heresay"
"No sir, I literally put it in my mouth and ate it, no one told me about it."
Heresay as a word implies something that was heard, not the admission by the initial party.Defendant: "We all know I eat"
Officer: "He ate a sandwich on november 3rd, he said I know that he eats, so I can testify that this is what he ate, even though I didn't actually see him eating a sandwich on that date"
Court: "Umm..... no"No, it's like this.
Defendant: "I ate and the cop there on the stand knows what it was that I ate, his knowledge is accurate."
Officer under oath: "He had a ham and swiss."
Court: "Okay"No, not at all. He didn't say "anything the police say is on my computer is there"... you're wearing me out here. He made an ambiguous statement about what's there.
I'm not trying to wear you out. I'm just trying to point out that your claim to ambiguity hinges on that "we both know what is on there" does not mean anything, and I feel that telling the cop under a situation of extreme clarity as to why the cop is asking that he does indeed know what is on there is very clear.
There are points as to why I feel it is not ambiguous...
- Presumably he knows exactly why he's being arrested and asked for the password.
- He knows what is on there.
- He tells the cop that what they think is on there is what is on there under a condition where the seems to be no reasonable doubt as to what he meant.
Under other conditions where one of those points doesn't exist, I would agree that his statement would be ambiguous. But under what we believe to be the situation, to me it seems anything but. It's crystal clear that he knew, they knew, and he admitted to exactly that.
None of this matters Scott.
What matters is that a person cannot be compelled to self incriminate or provide evidence against their own case.
You're wrong, and you're picking and choosing what to respond to to attempt to make your argument sound valid, when in fact it's just plainly wrong.
