Study Weighs In On the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Weighs In On the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

Posted by samzenpus on Monday October 6, 2014 @08:41AM from the do-you-see-that-person-here dept.

sciencehabit writes The victim peers across the courtroom, points at a man sitting next to a defense lawyer, and confidently says, "That's him!" Such moments have a powerful sway on jurors who decide the fate of thousands of people every day in criminal cases. But how reliable is eyewitness testimony? A new report concludes that the use of eyewitness accounts need tighter control, and among its recommendations is a call for a more scientific approach to how eyewitnesses identify suspects during the classic police lineup.

102 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Reader's Digest Version by stevez67 · 2014-10-06 08:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Eyewitnesses testimony is not nearly as accurate as one would have hoped.
1. Re:Reader's Digest Version by Arkh89 · 2014-10-06 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Do they mean that eyewitnesses should wear glasses?
2. Re:Reader's Digest Version by i+kan+reed · 2014-10-06 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not in there at all.
  They do make mention of best practices for getting better eyewitness testimony, though.
3. Re:Reader's Digest Version by myowntrueself · 2014-10-06 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  Eyewitnesses testimony is not nearly as accurate as one would have hoped.
  Theres a lot of creativity involved in memory.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
4. Re: Reader's Digest Version by slick7 · 2014-10-06 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, Google glasses.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
5. Re:Reader's Digest Version by spiritplumber · 2014-10-06 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Unless the eyewitness is wearing a badge. Then his testimony magically becomes more accurate than video. I wish I was kidding: https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
  
  --
  Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
6. Re: Reader's Digest Version by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-06 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  iWitnesses would have to wear Apple's iSpectacles, though.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Note news. by glrotate · 2014-10-06 08:48 · Score: 1, Informative

This has been known for 20+ years.
The problem is that most states don't allow the adverse party to introduce evidence on the general unreliability of eye-witness testimony.
1. Re: Note news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  At the risk of starting a circlejerk: your point is even more relevant when cops are called as witnesses.
Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

"My Cousin Vinny"
Humans are unreliable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 08:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

And witnesses in a courtroom setting have been counted among the most unreliable sources since, I don't know, forever.
Not news.
1. Re:Humans are unreliable by JeffAtl · 2014-10-06 09:18 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Defense attorneys and the justice system may know that, but juries don't. Other than DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony (especially from victims) is considered gold standard evidence by juries.
  It's unfortunate because eyewitness identification of strangers (especially strangers of a differing race) are very unreliable.
  It's not accident that prosecutors and cops have been very upset about the "CSI effect" since it has partly educated juries to expect some physical evidence.
2. Re:Humans are unreliable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  As a juror, I attach little weight to eyewitness identification presented by prosecutors except in special circumstances.
  One of those being the witness knows the plaintiff quite well and had good visibility of the face and the act (i.e., not based "how the suspect walked" or "suspect was the guy running from the scene").
  Another would be if there are some incredibly unique features of the defendant (has three eyes, is 2'3" tall, and his nose is upside down for example) that the eyewitness can identify.
3. Re:Humans are unreliable by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 21:13 · Score: 1
  
  The other aspect of the CSI effect is that juries anticipate when the prosecutor looks them square in the eye and says there is DNA evidence, they view it as conclusive regardless of how weak the other evidence is.
  Trifles such as proper evidence gathering, transfer, and storage techniques, lab accreditation, quality of the specimen, etc. are assumed to be ultra high-tech. I think most people would be horrified at how many lapses actually occur.
  And even the DNA evidence is less an absolute, but a probability that must be weighed against statistical analysis of the population, same size, and mobility.
  Anymore, I see DNA evidence as only useful in declaring innocence. Forensics is filled to the brim with pseudo-science.
4. Re:Humans are unreliable by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-06 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  Trifles such as proper evidence gathering, transfer, and storage techniques, lab accreditation, quality of the specimen, etc. are assumed to be ultra high-tech. I think most people would be horrified at how many lapses actually occur.
  Quite hilariously, that's again a problem with the people rather than with the physical evidence. :-D So I guess the conclusion is that "humans screw things up whenever they touch something".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
5. Re:Humans are unreliable by JeffAtl · 2014-10-07 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  Have you found that it is difficult to convince other jurors that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable?
  I've found that most jurors are very swayed by eyewitness identifications, heinousness of the crime and if the defendant "looks guilty".
6. Re:Humans are unreliable by Rich0 · 2014-10-08 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Trifles such as proper evidence gathering, transfer, and storage techniques, lab accreditation, quality of the specimen, etc. are assumed to be ultra high-tech. I think most people would be horrified at how many lapses actually occur.
  Do you mean that in real life when the boyfriend of somebody in the crime lab is suspected of a crime they don't assign the case to the person who is personally involved with them? How, undramatic that must be!
Documentary by JStyle · 2014-10-06 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative

I think this information is generally well known in law enforcement by now (at least, I hope so). I saw a news documentary on it and it's surprising how poor an eyewitness account can be, especially if handled incorrectly.
Keep spreading awareness:
Documentary Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Documentary Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. Re:Documentary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  Not only this but the idea that cops might not really be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth seems to be widely accepted by the folks in the legal profession. Sadly it is not in the best interests of the legal people to let any of this impact their search for "justice."
2. Re:Documentary by JeffAtl · 2014-10-06 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Law enforcement has known this for a long time, but they don't care.
3. Re:Documentary by JasonGoatcher · 2014-10-06 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Depending on the situation, the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth" are two different things. One could argue the "whole truth" would include opinions while also arguing that "nothing but the truth" would only include verifiable facts. Which means telling the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" could be a logical impossibility in some situations.
4. Re:Documentary by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing but the truth: 12 is divisible by 4
  The whole truth: 12 is divisible by all real and imaginary numbers.
  By stating nothing but the truth you can lie by omission. By stating the whole truth you can confuse your audience by focusing on irrelevant details.
  (the interesting truth: 12 is divisible by 12, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1).
The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 09:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

The idea that justice can be obtained by being judged by a jury of your peers is based on the hidden premise that people who are equal to you in the way in which they are your peers are capable of rendering a fair judgment upon you. This premise is false. Not only are my peers easily influenced by spurious logic, they are also susceptible to all manner of emotional manipulation, subliminal messaging and whatever else. Justice is not rendered by the level to which one of the lawyers is able to influence these factors. Nevertheless, that is exactly how a majority of cases judged by jurors are played out. Being judged by a jury of your peers may have been a good idea 300-400 years ago, but now we know better. Why doesn't the law reflect that?
1. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by sexconker · 2014-10-06 09:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Being judged by your peers isn't about their ability to accurately judge, avoid bias, etc. (that's what juror selection, the judge's instructions, sequestration, etc. are for).
  Being judged by your peers is about NOT being judged by a population of powerful/rich/elite fucks who absolutely have no idea what life is like for the people they are judging.
2. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by internerdj · 2014-10-06 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had some mod points today.
3. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  So who should you be judged by? And who decides who those are?
4. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  1: judges
  2: law professors
5. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I knew a lawyer once that told me they try to weed out critical thinkers in the selection process. If you have an engineering or science degree they don't want you. If you have a law degree, they really don't want you.
6. Re: The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:23 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  My psych research specifically investigated the impact of warning a jury about the impact of social contagion on eyewitness statements. It found if you warned jurors they actually take this on board and shift their judgment of the testimony appropriately. This suggests that jurors specifically aren't the problem as such it is more about education - it is a very commonly held belief that eyewitness testimony is strong because people themselves don't question the accuracy of their own memories and tend to apply this in assessing the memory of others.
7. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Agreed. The flaw in jury by peers is that the law is written to be incomprehensible, so the jury is forced to defer to the lawyers about what actions could possibly be considered a crime. On a related note, modern juries are never informed of their right of nullification (finding the law to be at fault, rather than a simple guilty or not guilty verdict), they are told repeatedly that their only purpose is to assess the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
  Coherent laws and a properly educated jury would resolve many of the issues with the justice system in the USA. The only victims would be the legislatures who would have to write better laws or risk the juries striking them down again and again.
8. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately, most people nowadays view jury duty as an inconvenience rather than a civic responsibility. I was on a jury and the guy next to me was sitting there doodling in his notebook the whole time testimony was being given, and there were several hundred thousand dollars on the line for the defendant. I'd almost rather be judged by a judge than a group of asshats like that.
9. Re: The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  The practical issue that you can't educate a jury about every possible form of bias and fallacy remains, however. Jurors, being regular people, will insist on using heuristics that have served them well in everyday life in judging the matter before them (even though those are not typically logically valid but based on induction and fuzzy logic). Lawyers know this, and can exploit those heuristics in obtaining a verdict.
10. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  This does not contradict anything I have said. Furthermore, if that's what juror selection etc. is for, it's doing a piss-poor job. And even if that's what it's for, it's not how it's being used. I have been dismissed from jury duty for being a phd student in an area relevant to the case, ie., someone capable of thinking for themselves.
11. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  That's taking a conclusion and working back an argument.
  A jury of your peers was actually meant to be just that - your social/societal peers. People who *knew* you or at least knew of you. In those days they didn't need RICO laws as if you were nicked for something minor, the jury, knowing you're a right asshole who routinely infringes on others' rights, will convict on lesser evidence than Joe from down the street.
  By the same token, if these same people knew you had beef with the local constable and the charges were bunk, they'd render a not guilty verdict instantly. These have issue with jury tampering, but those are still present today in our 'anonymous' juries and could be solved solely through creative jury box arrangements whereby the jury was unseen by the defense/prosecution (only 'heard').
  It's often the kind of 'justice' people so often demand (i.e. XYZ got off on a technicality, he'll kill/rape/whatever again) and isn't wholly incompatible with equal treatment under the law (if you disagree, you presumably don't believe in jury nullification as it can also be inequal treatment).
12. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by JasonGoatcher · 2014-10-06 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The flaw in jury by peers is that the law is written to be incomprehensible, so the jury is forced to defer to the lawyers about what actions could possibly be considered a crime
  This is a fallacious argument that simply helps dishonest lawyers make money. Reading the law isn't fun, it's rather tedious, but it's not simply a mishmash of laws. Absent of case law, which has no legal basis in the American judicial system, laws are written to be understood the way a computer would understand a computer problem. You simply read them and apply them. If there are any contradictions or vagueness, then that part of the law is simply void and doesn't apply to that particular case.
13. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by penguinoid · 2014-10-06 09:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  We have juries not because they are great, but because the alternative is worse. Sure, if everything goes as it should, a judge or panel of professional jurors would be more accurate than a bunch of novices. But then there is nothing to stop corrupt judges (remember that judge who got bribed to fill up a juvenile for profit prison?).
  The jury is there as the final check and balance on the judicial system (deciding guilt or innocence) and also on the legislative branch (jury nullification, declaring innocence because the law itself was wrong).
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
14. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anubis+IV · 2014-10-06 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  You really want to abandon your right to be judged by your peers in favor of being judged by appointees of the executive branch and/or locally-elected politicians, or, alternatively, by the people who are from rich enough families that they can go to nice schools?
  There are all kinds of problems with juries, but the nice thing about them is that they are fairly consistently good/bad over time. In contrast, put the rich folks, appointees, and politicians in control over the outcomes of cases, and you can pretty much guarantee that within a generation, "justice" will take on a whole new appearance.
15. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not what I said. I want people to judge over me who have been judged to be capable of doing so by people who have spent their lives studying the basis on which judgments are and should be made. This does not rule out the judge judgers making decisions based on other criteria (such as political affiliation (though the effect of this can be mitigated by requiring meta-judgments to be performed by a committee) but it is a vast improvement over the current system.
16. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Having the property of "being a person who knows me personally" does not render you immune to being manipulated into making judgments you wouldn't otherwise have made by people who have made a career out of achieving just that effect. This is what lawyers do. That they didn't always is no reason to maintain the laws written in a time when they didn't.
17. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Being judged by your peers isn't about their ability to accurately judge, avoid bias, etc. (that's what juror selection, the judge's instructions, sequestration, etc. are for).
  Jury selection is so gamed by lawyers it's ridiculous to assume those that are selected represent a anything close to a "peer". They like to pick folks with monosyllabic answers. Anyone who presents an actual ability to THINK about something is dismissed. They're playing to the notion that people can be easily swayed and selecting for that.
  It's trivial to disregard a judges instructions but make it look like they were adhered to.
  Sequestration is a joke of a concept in the digital era.
  You're assuming folks in your class will have no reason to ever fuck anyone over. Not out of malice or spite necessarily, but just cause they don't care, didn't pay attention or came to a faulty conclusion. Given the number of functional illiterates out there, it's not a game of chance I'd be all that excited to play.
  
  Being judged by your peers is about NOT being judged by a population of powerful/rich/elite fucks who absolutely have no idea what life is like for the people they are judging.
  Are you suggesting that is the ONLY other option? Seems pretty radical when perhaps a few modifications to what we have is all that would be needed.
  Honestly, your post rather reinforces the original poster in my eyes. You've just leaned back into the argument that you know best. Your hardly accurate historical context for why things are the way they are doesn't mean things couldn't be improved.
18. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anubis+IV · 2014-10-06 10:07 · Score: 2
  
  I gotcha. I thought you were answering his first question (who should you be judged by?), but you were actually answering his second question (who decides who judges you?), correct?
  If so, that makes a lot more sense, and it wasn't clear from the context that that's what you meant, hence my reaction, since I assumed you were answering the first question.
  My primary issue with the jury system is that oftentimes the people selected as jurors are not actually peers, other than that we may both be citizens. Hypothetically, if there were a perfect means for selecting peers that are appropriate to the case at hand (e.g. technically-minded people for a technical patent case), that seems like it'd be great, and it seems as if that's the sort of thing you're suggesting by saying that judges and law professors should be able to choose jurors. It'd help ensure that the right people get selected for the right juries.
  That said, every system of that sort that I've ever seen proposed is open to massive amounts of abuse, including the one you just proposed. Ideas like meta-committees tend to fall apart when you can't tolerate even a single false positive or need to be able to detect and act on biases quickly to remove someone from authority. Moreover, the whole "who watches the watchmen" issue quickly comes into play. Having juries that are entirely outside the purview of watchmen ensures that they're more difficult to tamper with in any sort of widespread way, though obviously there are other issues to contend with.
  Honestly, I might be more inclined to simply let jurors provide preferences for which cases they'd be interested in covering. They get there, they're told in general terms what sort of cases are available (e.g. "engineering patent dispute", "murder", "traffic ticket"), they order them based on preference, and then some sort of weighted algorithm with a bit of randomness assigns them accordingly. It doesn't fix nearly everything, but it keeps people out of the process and may help to take the edge off of some of the worst aspects of purely random assignments to cases.
19. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by sjames · 2014-10-06 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  That is not helped at all by the attitude of the courts. Don't have transportation? Too bad. Parking costs more than the 'expenses' check that was adequate in 1960? Too bad. Can't afford to take time off? Too bad. Won't have a job when it's over? Too bad. Single parent and the babysitter died in the living room? Too bad. Work the night shift? Too bad, be here at 8:00 A.M.
  No wonder people resent it.
20. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  I think he was answering both... you get judged by judges who have been vetted by law professors.
21. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Bengie · 2014-10-06 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  I would rather be judged by ethical people with a background in the sciences and a strong sense of reasoning. Unfortunately, they're rare.
22. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by kruach+aum · 2014-10-06 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. I thought numbering the questions I was answering would make that clear but I suppose I should have written "question 1:" and "question 2:" instead of "1:" and "2:" to remove all ambiguity.
23. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anubis+IV · 2014-10-06 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Oh well. So much for thinking I understood. >_<
  Regardless, I still have issues with what you said. I think my issues are evident, so I won't repeat them.
24. Re: The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by cptdondo · 2014-10-06 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  The trial attorneys I know tell me that shows like NCIS and Criminal Minds really skew juries' expectations of testimony. There's an unrealistic expectation of high-tech magic that's simply not there.
25. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Whatsisname · 2014-10-06 11:22 · Score: 2
  
  The law is full of vagueness and contradictions. The very term "reasonable", which is common in many criminal statutes, by its very nature is open to interpretation and depends on situation.
  You are right in that the laws are written much as computer programs are, except the people writing them don't even have remotely the skill to properly do so. And the law doesn't have an implementation to test against, it's written and goes straight into production. We all know how well that practice usually turns out for software developers.
  Unlike code, with the law, instead of a bluescreen, when an error occurs, someone gets killed, goes to prison, or loses their property.
26. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Whatsisname · 2014-10-06 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like the courts can do anything about it. The money to pay for that is set by the legislature. I don't foresee any legislator voting to increase taxes or fees to increase payments for jurors. Coupled with the social stereotype that jury duty is for idiots, it's a downward spiral.
27. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by sjames · 2014-10-06 11:40 · Score: 2
  
  They can be more flexible about it even without more money. They don't HAVE to threaten with arrest right off the bat. They could not make you wait until after business hours the night before to find out if you will or will not be needed. They could provide enough chairs for everyone to sit. They could avoid calling some people every year and some never. They could waive the parking fee. Instead of arresting people who can't get there, they could give them a lift (don't tell me they don't have the resources, if they can give you a lift to jail, they can give you a lift to the courthouse).
  For that matter, they could make it illegal to cut your hours or fire you if you have jury duty AND enforce it.
  And, of course, they could not charge so many people with victimless nonviolent drug charges so they wouldn't need so many jurors.
28. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Livius · 2014-10-06 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the jury system is flawed.
  What do you suggest replacing it with?
29. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Chewbacon · 2014-10-06 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  And what's your problem with accuracy exactly? Is it finding too many innocent people guilty or vice versa? And what methods do you propose take over? The telescreen? Mass surveillance of every moment of our lives? Not at the cost of right to privacy. Take some comfort in knowing our justice system is intended to let guilty men go free over incarcerating innocent men.
  
  --
  Chewbacon
  The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
30. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by debrain · 2014-10-06 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  The use of peers is to avoid situations like the Star Chamber and the Inquisition.
31. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 16:09 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. The flaw in jury by peers is that the law is written to be incomprehensible, so the jury is forced to defer to the lawyers about what actions could possibly be considered a crime.
  The law is not written to be incomprehensible anymore than particle physics is written to be incomprehensible. It's incomprehensible* no matter how you write it. What the law is should be none of the jury's business ... there is a good reason that lawyers are barred from jury duty in most places. The judge is the tribunal of law, the jury is there as a tribunal of fact. Thus the judge instructs the jury to find the defendant guilty if this and this and that fact has been proven. It is quite right for the jury to defer to lawyers on what actions and intentions constitute a crime.
  [*to those who haven't invested the effort it takes to comprehend it.]
32. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  I was on a jury once and the prosecutor regretted it.
  I was the lone juror that resulted in a hung jury on three or four counts of spousal rape (we convicted on the other three such counts). The reason was that the victim didn't testify explicitly that she had been "penetrated" several of the times her husband was accused of "penetrating" her during a single session. Each count required a unique "penetration" (not just a thrust - the penis had to be "outside" the vagina from my reading of the law as presented in the jury instructions). She did refer to something having happened those "extra count" times, but it wasn't clear that she was even claiming her husband's penis had exited and then reentered her on those occasions -- perhaps because the prosecutor never actually asked that question. In addition, there was a language barrier which gave me more doubt about the situation.
  BTW, to a layperson's view, it was just one long rape where the husband got up and walked across the small bedroom a couple times, for reasons I forget, before returning immediately to resume intercourse. Since the plaintiff had testified to him getting up and going across the room those times and we had a layout of the room/act, I felt it was beyond reasonable doubt that the guy's penis wasn't six feet long so he must have had to "re-penetrate" to resume the rape upon return. IMHO, the law should have treated this as a single rape and made the punishment for that serious enough that justice was served, but it turned out conviction on only three counts of spousal rape was, oddly, apparently only going to get him probation (this was quite a few years ago) where six would have subjected him to some serious prison time.
  After the two week trial was over, the prosecutor spoke with the jury. When I told her what had happened, she said she hadn't wanted me on the jury but, she had run out of "no cause" dismissals. I think her concern arose from what happened during voir dire. We went through maybe 80 potential jurors and we each filled out a multiple page questionnaire just before being questioned in person. One of the questions was something like "Do you have a notion about what someone should do after they are raped?" I answered "yes" and when the lawyers saw this when skimming my questionnaire, they looked surprised. So, after some sidebars (the judge in this case insisted on asking all the followup questions himself), the judge asked me why I answered "yes" and I replied something like "Well, if my daughter, wife, or friend reported to me that she had just been raped, I'm very certain I wouldn't stand their dumbfounded forever and never give any advice on what she should do, so I think I must have a notion of what one should do if they are raped". There were a few more probing questions on this line, but eventually, I remained on the jury. What amazed me, that none of the remaining jurors (who heard this entire exchange) seem to have answered "yes" after my very logical reason for doing so (I assume they would all just stood there permanently dumbfounded as to what their daughter should do if she said she had been raped).
  I think having engineers on juries can make life harder for the prosecutor because I think we are more likely to actually look at each element of every count and think about each one -- not just, this guy's evil so he probably did all the extra things they are accusing him of. The also are probably more likely to catch things like the "expert" who says he "Was in the doctorate program of X at U of Y" - carefully trying to obscure the actual fact that he never got his doctorate. (I know an engineer that caught this and had to prove to the rest of the jury, by having the transcript read back, that the expert never said he got his PhD from X at U of Y.)
33. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  If you have a law degree, they really don't want you.
  In my jurisdiction having a law degree (which I have in addition to a science degree) outright disqualifies one from jury duty. The temptation for a lawyer to disregard the instruction of the judge on matters of law is considered too great. Unlike the judge's instructions, which are explicit and can be appealed, the potential lawyer-juror's understanding of the law (and juries are not supposed to make decisions on matters of law, but on matters of fact) is inscrutable.
  Tactically, I'm sure lawyers would love to weed out critical thinkers so as to boost the chances of their rhetoric. I mean all those damn 'Rules of Evidence' make it difficult enough to put persuasive arguments as it is.
34. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by skapaft · 2014-10-06 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  How about no jury, like any of the other better working legal systems in the modern world?
35. Re: The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by mal0rd · 2014-10-06 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a link to this specific research or an article about it?
36. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 22:29 · Score: 0
  
  That's the very reason why I as a European (a Finn) consider the US system very fucking scary. I know that many (most?) Americans consider yours "the best in the world". However, I consider it horrifying to let a bunch of people half of whom simply going by statistics are below median intelligence. Let alone how stupid the jury becomes when the defence and the prosecution remove those who presumably are the smartest. And no, I'm not in any way saying that a jury in your system is bound to be stupid just because they're Americans - I would consider a random sample of people here to be just as stupid and frighteningly unqualified to decide on anything important.
  Our system is not perfect either but basically you have to apply and get evaluated before you're eligible to be in the "jury pool" which in total in the country is a couple of thousand people for a certain period of time. To qualify you cannot have any functions in any institution related to justice (i.e. no cops, no lawyers) be between 25 and 65 years of age (IIRC) and be "otherwise suitable" (a vague criterion, I know, but it usually refers to financial security, no mental problems etc.) For each court case a jury is then drawn from that so that it consists of people who e.g. must have different political affiliations (we have a myriad of parties that are actually represented in parliament). The jury's evaluation of a case is then lead by a legal professional but every member has one vote and they then vote on the verdict. A split is interpreted in favour of the defendant.
37. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Ranbot · 2014-10-07 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think you need to put more responsibility on the shoulders of the highly paid professional lawyers and presiding judges to present the case to the jurors so they can understand the issues and facts, including any emotional elements. These professionals are paid not only to be experts in law, but to effectively communicate the law to jurors, judges, and clients. If they fail in that, that's on them, not necessarily the jurors or the larger system. Unfortunately, their failure could cause injustice to individuals involved in the trial. However, it's no different than any other technical/professional fields where one needs to interact and convey ideas to the layperson. If a scientist, a doctor, a financial planner, an engineer, an IT specialist, a lawyer, a judge, etc. can't effectively communicate with the lay person it could have dire consequences and those professionals have failed at least part of their job (emphasis on "part" because they may be very good at other aspects of their job).
  Too often people in technical fields fall into a trap of blaming their troubles on "inferior minds" around them, instead of reflecting on how they could be better communicators.
38. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-07 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  The real issue here is that the definition of peer today in the legal system has been completely altered. When that phrase came about, it used the actual definition as defined by virtually any dictionary (even today):
  "one that is of equal standing with another : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status".
  150/200 years ago and more, this definition many times meant that people who knew you were on the jury. People who might be your teacher, minister, owner of the general store you purchased your goods at, your neighbors and friends. People who knew you, or at least knew of you, and could determine if evidence given fit the person being judged. Or, people of the same standing and group, and could render judgement based on their own background and experience. Today, ANY involvement or knowledge of the person being tried is an automatic ticket off the jury pool.
  So - today you are not given a jury of your peers. Maybe that's part of the problem today - NOT having a jury of your peers.
39. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by sexconker · 2014-10-07 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  You're correct that "case law" is meaningless bullshit.
  But you're absolutely wrong about laws being objectively, logically, and deterministically. You're also absolutely wrong about laws that are vague or contradictory. Most laws are vague, contradictory, or both, and they're still in full effect.
40. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-07 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  The use of peers is to avoid situations like the Star Chamber and the Inquisition.
  How do you guarantee that the twelve shanghaied losers will opt to remain sober?
41. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Rich0 · 2014-10-08 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  That is not helped at all by the attitude of the courts. Don't have transportation? Too bad. Parking costs more than the 'expenses' check that was adequate in 1960? Too bad. Can't afford to take time off? Too bad. Won't have a job when it's over? Too bad. Single parent and the babysitter died in the living room? Too bad. Work the night shift? Too bad, be here at 8:00 A.M.
  No wonder people resent it.
  Nonsense. The courts are very understanding about real-life demands.
  When I was on jury duty a man stood up and said that he had to prepare for a trial that was scheduled for the following week. The judge asked if he was an attorney, and when he said yes he was immediately excused.
  And if somebody in the court wastes a lot of time, the attorneys on the other side can argue that this has cost them lost time and ask for reimbursement for this.
  Oh wait, you aren't an attorney? Yeah, your time is basically worth $0/hr.
42. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Rich0 · 2014-10-08 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  For that matter, they could make it illegal to cut your hours or fire you if you have jury duty AND enforce it.
  Employers NEVER fire people for attending jury duty. They are given all the time they need, and then they are expected to get all their work done on the dates that were assigned before they left for jury duty, doing whatever is necessary to get the job done.
  At my workplace I can basically take a day off anytime I like. The consequences come when I either don't get stuff done on time, or I end up working 30 hours every weekend to catch up.
  This sort of thing is almost impossible to enforce. It is no different from many other forms of discrimination/etc - employers have learned how to make every separation a matter of either business needs or performance. If you're part of some kind of legally protected class and the statistics don't work out, then there can be a case. Still, if you get one discriminating boss then that often doesn't work because in the aggregate HR will usually just make sure that the next mass-layoff makes the numbers even out.
43. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by sjames · 2014-10-08 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Employers NEVER fire people for attending jury duty.
  
  Sure, where you work. Some people are stuck working McJobs and do get penalized if they dare to ask for a day off, even if it is for jury duty. They don't get the chance to put in 30 hours over the weekend so they don't end up homeless at the end of the month.
44. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by Rich0 · 2014-10-08 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Employers NEVER fire people for attending jury duty.
  Sure, where you work. Some people are stuck working McJobs and do get penalized if they dare to ask for a day off, even if it is for jury duty. They don't get the chance to put in 30 hours over the weekend so they don't end up homeless at the end of the month.
  I think you missed the point. McJobs never fire people for jury duty either. They only fire people for breaking the rules. Of course, everybody breaks the rules since they're impossible to follow, but you only get written up for them if you attend jury duty, or you don't sleep with the boss, or you're the wrong race, etc.
  And yes, for many simply being denied the opportunity to work can be devestating.
45. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by JasonGoatcher · 2014-10-08 12:07 · Score: 0
  
  You're correct that "case law" is meaningless bullshit.
  But you're absolutely wrong about laws being objectively, logically, and deterministically. You're also absolutely wrong about laws that are vague or contradictory. Most laws are vague, contradictory, or both, and they're still in full effect.
  Have you ever actually sat down and read the law? I suggest you try. In my case, it was income tax law. My conclusion was that the IRS runs on lies and subterfuge. The guy who pointed me in that direction(never actually met him, he sold audio tapes way back in '93 with the pertinent information on them) also suggested people research the speed limit laws if they had a "lead foot."
  Not going to judge you if you don't do it, but you might try actually sitting down with the laws. Not the case law BS, but the laws themselves. Focus on things that affect you in a negative way and see what the laws actually say.
  Also, realize that very few lawyers respect the literal laws if it contradicts what they've been taught. Living based on the actual laws can be a rather dangerous affair. If you do intend to do this sort of thing, go in 100% or not at all, and be a loudmouth about it. Evil fears the light, and talking about illegal practices is the light I'm talking about.
46. Re:The whole juror system needs to be abandoned by sjames · 2014-10-08 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  And that needs to be considered when calling people for jury duty. If they are in that category, perhaps they have enough trouble without jury duty.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by rahvin112 · 2014-10-06 09:12 · Score: 5, Informative

That was more a documentary on how police take innocent statements and turn them against you to make you look guilty. People should understand that when the police take his exclamation of disbelief and remove the context and emotion and read that back in court as an admission of guilt by the defendant that this is not only used in real life but used frequently and is precisely why you should never ever talk to the police without a lawyer present.
Humans are suspectible to tricks. by gurps_npc · 2014-10-06 09:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Lots of little tricks affect the human mind.
You can watch a man in an ape suit dance and never see him. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla...
That's why cops are supposed to do mug shots/line ups sequentially instead of simultaneously (i.e. "Is this the guy? No. How about this guy? No." Rather than "Pick the guy from these people.")
It's also why so many people confess to crimes they did not do.
Their is no such thing as indisputable proof. Just our best guess.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks. by Anubis+IV · 2014-10-06 09:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's why cops are supposed to do mug shots/line ups sequentially instead of simultaneously
  I actually read the article, and I noticed this tidbit:
  
  For some of the scientific controversies surrounding eyewitness accounts, the new report withholds judgment. For example, the traditional police lineup can be performed in one of two ways: The witness can be shown people sequentially, or all of them at once. The goal is to minimize bias, but scientists disagree on which approach is better—or if it matters at all. The report calls this debate "unresolved."
  So, it doesn't disprove what you said, but it does suggest that it's not quite so black-and-white as you put it. They did point out that there is clear evidence in favor of conducting the police lineup in a double-blind fashion, which should be a "no duh" sort of thing for any of us, but apparently is a novel idea for many police departments.
2. Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks. by Darinbob · 2014-10-06 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  People also believe their own memories. But these are easily distorted and often wrong. People will be shown pictures of something in their past that contradict their memories and then declare that the pictures must be fakes. I see this myself when I start to pay attention, realizing that my memory is wrong. This isn't just long term memories that degrade, but even for short term memories.
  Essentially memory doesn't operate like a book or a photograph. Instead it's a network of concepts and ideas that get used together to create the memory, and any gaps are filled in with details that seem consistent. In other words, it's a highly lossy compression system.
3. Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks. by gurps_npc · 2014-10-07 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  The argument comes down to which you want more:
  Sequential has fewer positives - true or false. Simultaneous has more positives - true and false.
  If you care more about getting the guy, you want simultaneous.
  If you care more about not getting the innocent man, you want sequential.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
4. Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks. by MozeeToby · 2014-10-07 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  The real problem isn't sequentially or simultaneously, the problem is that the "experiment" isn't blinded in any direction. Witnesses will assume that if they've been called in for a line up, a suspect must be present, making them more likely to identify someone, anyone, as the perpatrator. Meanwhile the very cops that are trying to build their case are usually in the viewing room with them, consciously or unconsciously they're going to affect who gets identified.
5. Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks. by Anubis+IV · 2014-10-07 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely, which is why a blinded approach works so much better. What the study proposed is a computer-aided system that selects similar-looking candidates for a lineup at random, and then generates lineups that may or may not contain the suspect. Officers need not even be involved in such a system, preventing the sorts of abuses you're talking about, where the officers hint to the witness (consciously or not) which selection is the "correct" one.
6. Re:Humans are suspectible to tricks. by Reziac · 2014-10-07 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  TFA led me to this list of interesting studies:
  http://faculty.washington.edu/...
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
the 400-pound gorilla by turkeydance · 2014-10-06 09:19 · Score: 2

for a police line-up what can the authorities do? http://abcnews.go.com/US/obese...
1. Re:the 400-pound gorilla by multimediavt · 2014-10-06 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  And therein lies the problem: the police lineup.
  
  A new report concludes that the use of eyewitness accounts need tighter control, and among its recommendations is a call for a more scientific approach to how eyewitnesses identify suspects during the classic police lineup.
  The whole lineup process is usually rigged, and can easily be rigged to single out an individual from a pack of "suspects". The lineup is the problem as that tool can too easily be manipulated to garner eyewitness testimony from someone that only "thinks" that's the person they saw and is then coached to say they are "positive" that's the person they saw. And yes, I like the example noted above of "My Cousin Vinny". It's somewhat comically presented, but the fact is people have been wrongfully convicted from dubious "eyewitness testimony" for centuries! Forensic evidence has been helping to curtail these type of wrongful convictions, but sometimes long after the fact.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by internerdj · 2014-10-06 09:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

I read a very interesting piece just this morning where a man who was not talking to police without a lawyer ended up having his silence used to prove that he was lacked basic human empathy in a fatal hit and run. Of course, now I can't find the article.
12 Angry Men by Bardez · 2014-10-06 09:41 · Score: 1

This sounds exactly like what the movie 12 Angry Men was trying to say.

--
Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:53 · Score: 0

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/22/california-supreme-court-prosecutors-may-use-the-silence-of-a-defendant-as-proof-of-guilt/
And the SCOTUS ruling that the California Supreme Court used as a basis for their ruling.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/17/the-price-of-silence-supreme-court-rules-that-pre-miranda-silence-can-be-used-against-defendant-to-prove-guilt/
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 09:54 · Score: 0

Unless you explicitly assert your rights (i.e. actually say "I choose to remain silent" or an acceptable variation thereof), they can use your silence against you.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by sjames · 2014-10-06 10:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's part of the problem. Law and court aren't supposed to be a game of "Mother May I" but it's being turned in to one. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that a magic incantation must be uttered.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by PRMan · 2014-10-06 10:07 · Score: 2

"You have the right to remain silent."

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 10:36 · Score: 0

This was a California state supreme court case this past year (and mentioned on radio this morning)
People v. Tom - California Courts
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by alen · 2014-10-06 10:46 · Score: 1

lesson seems to be not to drive drunk and not to run red lights and kill people driving lawfully
if he didn't run a red light he would have told the cops
the police and prosecutors need to do their job by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 11:05 · Score: 1

trust but verify should be the principal, and the police need to do the verify part before presenting a case to the court that has not been properly solved.
I was on a jury, the fucking stupid police and the fucking stupid crown prosecution service let down a victim, by trusting but not verifying her story. I can't tell anyone what actually happened because that would be contempt of court. As foreman, I had to stand up and tell her that he wasn't guilty (he wasn't) but I couldn't tell her that it happened, but she just got it wrong and put the wrong guy in the dock. She was abused, just two years before she claimed, and by someone else. That memory was scrambled by a triggering event that happened later, and she mixed up half the details of an actual event from 2000 with an actual event in 2002. It was like an episode of Law and Order Special Victims Unit. The jury was presented with this stream of contradictions, the defence and prosecution thought they were all talking about one event, the jury figured out it was two events, but the jury can't explain their reasons and in real life you don't get told the ending. So she went home presumably devastated that the jury let her down, when in reality we declined to imprison the only unconditional friend she ever had. The actual perpetrator will never be found, because exactly 12 people know that someone should be figuring out who it was. Her family thinks she lied and made it all up.
Yes, the court system can let down victims, but it really isn't nice to be on a jury where you know you are going to let down the victim, and you can't say why.
The jury system works fine, but they should be presented with a case that has a finished investigation.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Whatsisname · 2014-10-06 11:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Hussman32 · 2014-10-06 11:50 · Score: 2

I live near this intersection, the nearest light is well over 200 yards away, and the case description suggests he didn't run the light because he made a left turn on to the road where the accident occurred. It was likely he was going too fast, but if he were sober, odds are good she would have been held at fault.

However, California state law says he should have braked even if she entered the intersection illegally, and he did kill a young girl because he was impaired. I don't think you should have your right to remain silent explicitly declared; we are all taught we are allowed to remain silent.

--
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by nobodyknowsimageek · 2014-10-06 12:25 · Score: 1

The key is that you MUST say that you are not answering because you are invoking your 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. If you say nothing at all, then your silence may be used in court. If you say you are not answering because of 5th amendment, then your refusal to answer may NOT be used in court.
It is indeed a perverse ruling, but you can protect yourself by knowing how to respond.
Exception thrown by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 14:31 · Score: 0

The whole truth: 12 is divisible by all real and imaginary numbers.
Nope. Zero is a real number. 12 is not divisible by zero (and neither is anything else, for that matter.)
--fyngyrz
(anon due to mod points)
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 15:22 · Score: 0

The key is that you MUST say that you are not answering because you are invoking your 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. If you say nothing at all, then your silence may be used in court. If you say you are not answering because of 5th amendment, then your refusal to answer may NOT be used in court. It is indeed a perverse ruling, but you can protect yourself by knowing how to respond.
Are there any somatic or material components?
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 20:36 · Score: 0

The key is that you MUST say that you are not answering because you are invoking your 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself. If you say nothing at all, then your silence may be used in court. If you say you are not answering because of 5th amendment, then your refusal to answer may NOT be used in court.
The 5th amendment doesn't state any provisions like that. To me it sounds like something invented by corrupt cops to sidestep the 5th amendment.
Of course, it isn't the 2nd amendment so no-one gives a damn about it.
Does this also apply to WWII war crimes? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-06 21:00 · Score: 0

After I read Elisabeth Loftus in the 70-ties, my first (unvoiced) question was whether such doubts about the trustworthyness of eye-witnesses also applied to testimony about war crimes. After all, the circumstances in a war scene may well be more confusing than in peace time, and during the trial there often already is a bias against the party that lost (and therefore a corresponding bias in favour of the victims of that party).
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by internerdj · 2014-10-07 02:47 · Score: 1

Thank you. Not the same article but the same case.
Why is this an issue? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-07 05:21 · Score: 0

Everyone knows humans are unreliable but that is part of the risk inherent in the system and a known variable.
I still prefer this than some tech-centred "precise" system dreamt up by a bunch of MIT postgrads.
Real projective line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-07 05:54 · Score: 0

Nope. Zero is a real number. 12 is not divisible by zero (and neither is anything else, for that matter.)
Nope, 12 is divisible by zero :
12 / 0 = infinity
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_line#Dividing_by_zero
Which makes you the worst kind of pedant - one who is wrong.
1. Re:Real projective line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-07 15:15 · Score: 0
  
  No, you cannot divide by zero. You can divide by the limit as it approaches zero (which is infinity), but not by zero itself.
  Your source states that "division" in that case does not retain its original algebraic meaning, so its not division by zero.
2. Re:Real projective line by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-08 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  Your reading comprehension needs a little work.
  The real projective line is formed by adding infinity to the real line. That's why it's called the one point compactification of the real line.
  It's defined in such a way that : a / 0 = infinity
  
  Unlike most mathematical models of the intuitive concept of 'number', this structure allows division by zero.
  source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_line#Dividing_by_zero
  There's no need to take a limit here.
  
  Your source states that "division" in that case does not retain its original algebraic meaning, so its not division by zero.
  Which is precisely the point kruach aum is trying to make - the whole truth is that 12 <strike-through> is divisible </strike-through> can indeed be divided by all real and imaginary numbers, including zero, so long as you're prepared to use the field of complex numbers, or the space of the real projective line. It's the whole truth because the space isn't restricted to be positive integers.
  Fyngyrz, if you're really on the side of science, you know that you have to be wrong lots of times before you can learn something new. This time, you're wrong. Why not take the opportunity to learn something?
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by rahvin112 · 2014-10-08 07:47 · Score: 1

I had to refresh my memory of the case. The only reason this was allowed was because the guy voluntarily submitted to questioning then stopped when certain questions were reached. Though I disagree with the supreme court on this there is a significant difference between what you claimed and what precedent this sets. He unwillingness to talk to the police would not have been allowed to be discussed at trial had he not consented to the interview in the first place. The entire justification for allowing this at trial was because he consented to the questioning then stopped the interview when they asked certain questions. Had he refused to talk to the police from the get go and hired a lawyer he would have never been in this position.
It's a pretty simple rule, don't talk to the police without counsel.
Re:Recommended documentary on eyewitness testamony by Rakarra · 2014-10-08 08:52 · Score: 1

That was more a documentary on how police take innocent statements and turn them against you to make you look guilty. People should understand that when the police take his exclamation of disbelief and remove the context and emotion and read that back in court as an admission of guilt by the defendant that this is not only used in real life but used frequently and is precisely why you should never ever talk to the police without a lawyer present.
A recent, decent movie featuring such: Gone Girl.
I knew the main character was in trouble when he mentioned that since he was innocent and there was no evidence of his involvement, he didn't need/want a lawyer.