Talk to the cops? Are you crazy?

I have the honor of appearing on a few court-appointed lists in the area. This means I represent clients for misdemeanor, felony, and child protective/ delinquency cases. One of the perks of my job is that I get to read a lot of police reports, and talk to police officers and detectives a lot. The reason why I say this is a “perk” is that it makes me look at the arguments law enforcement would use if the case goes to trial, and how police psychology works. It’s actually quite underhanded and manipulative once you break it down into its pieces. Sometimes potential clients call me with the following scenario: “I was at a party last weekend, with a lot of friends. My friends tell me that Tom says that I committed a crime against him, and that he called the cops. Should I talk to the cops?” My advice is always “No, you have no obligation to talk to the cops.” And then I tell the potential client “if the cops call you, tell them you won’t be questioned without a lawyer present.” 1.       The format: Police reports are written in a good guy/ bad guy format. It’s like a play. Usually –and I can’t think of a time I have seen it any other way --  the person who calls the cops is the “good” guy. Once the cops identify the rest of the players in the play, they will try to finger one person  (or possibly a group of people, who end up as co-defendants) as the “bad guy.” This is the beginning of how the mind set of law enforcement works. It’s easier to sell the story to a jury if the play is simple. Good guy / bad guy is a scenario we have all seen, and the jury will want vengeance, justice, or something, for the good guy. This is how a conviction is made.  Also, police and prosecutors know their audiences: it is the general public. What is the general public’s IQ? How does the general public feel about victims and justice? 2.       Corroboration: Talking to the victim,  or alleged victim as I like to call him/her, gives the cops a list of other people to talk to, witnesses, before they talk to the person they’re trying to cast in the “bad guy” role.  This is how under-handed the police mindset is, as talking to other witnesses first becomes a set-up for the defendant to put his own picture in the frame, or cast himself in the starring role. It also gives police an inside edge, as this leads to a cross-examining of the defendant from their first contact. This part of the officer’s job. And it works in their favor as talking to other witnesses gives “corroboration” to the alleged victim’s story. If the witnesses back up the victim’s story, then the cops have some corroboration, and the victim’s story sounds more like it would stand up in court. Back to selling this story to a jury: if there’s a witness who says the same thing as the alleged victim, then the jury will have more sympathy toward the alleged victim, and it is easier to get a conviction. 3.       Contacting the defendant: The scene is now set, the cops have a victim, and some witnesses. Now all they need in the play is the bad guy. Once the cops call the potential defendant, they begin with what is called a “leading” question. Sometimes these are called open-ended questions. It’s the sort of question an interviewer uses on a job interview, such as “where do you see yourself in five years?” it doesn’t lead to a “yes” or “no,” instead it leads to more of an explanatory answer. Or, in the potential scenario of being pulled over, it sounds more like this “How fast did you think you were going?” This leads to an answer that can be incriminating such as “I’m not sure, but I think was going about 35.” Except in our “play,” as written by the police, it sounds a bit more like “Hi, Jim. My name is officer Bishop with the County sheriff’s office. Tom talked to us, and said you committed a crime against him.” This open-ended statement might lead a person to possibly deny the assertion, or to try to correct the cops. The problem is that any other statement a potential defendant makes at this point can be used to cast him in the role of bad guy, no matter the answer. Usually by this time, again, cops have talked to other witnesses, and so once the defendant says something, an officer can counter with “Well, Mr. Johnson said you went after Tom with a carving knife.” Here’s the corroboration coming to assist the cops, and further explanations by defendants are only helping the police. Also, the next thing a defendant says – even if it is the truth -- may lead to a credibility problem. The options are to either a) deny what has been said by Mr. Johnson, or possibly point the finger at someone else; or b) deny what was said totally. (Option (c) is also available, however). At the first contact by police, asserting an attorney’s assistance would be helpful. Instead, defendant should answer, “I’m sorry officer, but I can’t talk to you without my attorney present.” That’s option (c), which no one seems to take! Either way, the cops have an alleged victim, and a corroborating witness who already say nearly the same thing. But according to the defendant, those two are both liars now. That won’t seem likely to a potential jury, will it? This is just grist for the mill of the prosecution. Think again of the audience, which is the general public. Who should the jury believe: the defendant – or all of the possible ways to agree with the prosecution: instead the jury can believe the alleged victim, officer testimony, credible witness testimony . . . Police also know that facts are confusing – the victim and one or two witnesses usually get a few facts wrong, but this still can be OK to a jury. The victim is sympathetic; so it makes sense what with being attacked that the victim might get a few facts wrong. 4.       The defendant’s natural response woks against him. This is where manipulation also comes into play, in case it wasn’t used already when contacting the defendant. Most people are raised to think that the cops are good people, and that working with the cops will help everyone (even when being questioned about something). A second natural response happens when police contact a suspect. The suspect wants to “set the record straight” about what really happened. This works against the suspect as well. The police aren’t interested in getting it straight, they are interested in the “good guy/ bad guy” scenario. Back to my job: I can’t tell you how many times I have had clients tell me “I was respectful”--  “I didn’t make a scene,”-- or “I cooperated.” Even clients with fairly extensive criminal records tell me this, when their prior involvement with law enforcement should have them knowing better. Who cares whether you cooperate with the police? The police will do their job whether you cooperate or not. And that’s what they are paid to do, so why help them to do their job? I don’t see the cops coming along to help you do yours, now do I? 5.       The fact that cops wear uniforms works in their favor. It’s intimidating, for one. Second, it tends to lead to obedience on the part of defendants. Clients /defendants know that cops have uniforms, guns, and jails at their disposal. So it’s easier for cops to get compliance, and so defendants/ clients to give in to authority: the alternative can be scary – even if you are innocent. Third, it is de-humanizing. It’s not a guy who happens to be a cop, it’s a cop! People see the uniform, but not the individual in uniform. 7.

Considering divorce? Here's 8 women sharing their stories

" I never wanted to get divorced. I had moments of clarity, but I shut them down. I mean, I remember one time telling my coworker who got a bouquet of flowers that that was so wonderful. She asked if I had gotten anything and I said no, but that my husband was so wonderful, every day. I didn’t mind . . . ."

Article here (from fatherly.com)

Violent crime is down in Michigan since 2017 - breakdowns by city, campus, etc.

Good news! Violent crime is down in Michigan from last year.

Article here.

Muskegon's new city manager's payment schedule includes student loan repayment

And also includes a guarantee that he is under contract to Muskegon until 2023.

Article here.

Lottery to pick medical marijuana dispensaries in Grand Rapids

GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- Grand Rapids will use a lottery system to determine the order in which medical marijuana facility proposals will be considered by the city planning commission.

Article here!

Michigan candidate Bill Schuette not under grand jury investigation

A panel of judges decided not to pursue charges against Bill Schuette, who won Michigan's republican primary race recently.

Article here. 
However, the FBI may still decide whether to charge him.

Parents accused of death of infant - malnutrition alleged as cause of death

KENT COUNTY, MI - The parents accused in their 10-month-old daughter's malnutrition death will remain held without bond pending an Oct. 10 probable-cause hearing.

Article here. 

The court did not offer a bond to the couple, pending their probable case hearing, and potential binding-over to Circuit Court. 

Democrat challengers in the 3rd District to run in primary elections

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - Democrats Cathy Albro and Fred Wooden will square off in the Aug. 7 primary election for the 3^rd Congressional District.

The winner faces an uphill battle in his or her bid to defeat Republican Congressman Justin Amash, R-Cascade Township, a four-term incumbent who has handily defeated previous challengers in the historically red district.

Article here.

On this day: California passed the nation's first "no-fault" divorce law

California's legislature, in 1969, passed the first "no fault" divorce law in the US, allegedly on today's date.

Prior to that, a person seeking a divorce in any US state had to prove "grounds" for the divorce, such as cruelty, abandonment, or infidelity, as reasons why the court could grant the divorce. Further, a defending spouse (the one who was being "sued" for divorce) could defend - say in his or her pleadings that no, there wasn't any cruelty, abandonment, or infidelity, and the court would possibly not grant the divorce.



Michigan law has its statute written this way: the party seeking a divorce has to allege in his or her initial complaint that there is "a breakdown in the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of the marriage have been destroyed, and that there is no reasonable likelihood" that the parties would reconcile. MCL 552.6

Next Monday is a deadline if you want to vote in the August 9 Michigan primary elections

Want to vote in the next primary election? Then register to vote by next Monday, July 9. Article here.

Summer parenting time, and requesting to change schools - Q: I may need legal help, my ex wife won't follow the court order

Q: My ex keeps changing the summer schedule on me, and now she is asking to change next year, for the school district our kids are enrolled in, what should I do? 

A:You really have two questions here, first on the summer parenting time, and the second is change of schools. 
First:
 If you have a court order that summarizes when and where parenting time should take place in the summer months, both of you have to follow it.

However, if you and she have had a verbal agreement, where each of you agrees to what to do with the kids in the summer, it might be hard to say "she's violating the order," since there is no specific times - in writing - that you can show she hasn't done.

Sad to  say, it would have been better to get everything settled in advance of when summer time came, but I understand that sometimes this is hard to do, since camps have waiting lists, day care has staff changes, etc., during the summer months. The best thing is to keep in communication with her, the camp, the day care, etc., as the summer is being planned -- that way no unpleasant surprises are waiting for anyone.

Second:
Change of schools is a whole different issue. Most parents who share custody of children share legal custody of the children. These are the decisions in a child's life such as: where to attend school, where and when to go to church (if you do attend church), medical care, and other issues where it is important for the parents to agree.

In other words, one parent typically can't unilaterally decide that the children will change schools. 

It could be that your judgment of divorce (or custody) states what school district the children are to attend. But if it  doesn't, you should get separate legal advice on this issue to see if you need a motion to help decide the proper school district.

There is a good bit of case law on this issue - so again - I suggest you have an attorney review your current orders, and facts to help you. 

Q: How do I get rid of a misdemeanor on my record? Michigan law Q &A

Q: I had a conviction in 2008 for a traffic offense. I'd prefer to have that removed from my record, is there a way I can go about this? 

A: Yes, you can do this. The process is called "expungement," or also a "motion to set aside." The relevant law can be found here.

You have to apply for this in the county where the conviction happened. To meet the statutory requirements, it has to be more than 5 years since the offense. If your conviction was a misdemeanor, you can't have more than 2 misdemeanors (and only can set aside one) ; if your offense was a felony, you can't have any other felony offenses.

It does get a little more technical than that, so I hope that your criminal record isn't too involved, and in any case I hope you seek separate legal advice before you request this motion.

It also helps - a lot - to add evidence to your motion of your current good character. In other words, you've learned your lesson, and you are not likely to continue to break laws, and you won't be a concern to the legal system.

You also mention in your question that this was a "traffic offense." I am sorry to say that some types of criminal convictions can't be set aside under the statute, and convictions for drunk driving are one of those - so if you were convicted of impaired driving, operating under the influence, etc., your motion will fail. Again, seek separate legal advice before  you begin, even if you apply for the motion without a lawyer.
Yours,
Nancy

State bar reciprocity - what does it mean, what states do it

Imagine you're a lawyer, licensed in one state, and you'd like to move to another state. Or you get a case that is in another state - can you go to set up your practice in a new state, or take the out-of-state case? Possibly yes, if your state has reciprocity with the other.

State bars set their own reciprocity rules. If a state has decided not to reciprocate, then to practice in the "new" state, a lawyer has to take the bar exam for that state.

A good place to start researching this topic is here: Bar reciprocity.com

Keep in mind that the reciprocity process is not over night - anecdotal evidence suggests that the process can take 6 months. So if you're licensed in North Dakota, for example, practice for five years, then apply for reciprocity to Michigan, don't expect to be admitted overnight. Instead, the state bar will let you know in six months.