Common Criminal Law Myths: Separating Fact from Fiction
Criminal law is a field of law rife with myths and misconceptions which come from anecdotal stories, lack of information and popular media such as TV shows and movies. Having these misconceptions can harm an individual’s ability in Phoenix to best protect their own interests when faced with criminal challenges, be it just being stopped by the police for a traffic ticket or being convicted of a crime. The goal of this article is to highlight some of these myths and shed light on the truth so you can be best prepared should any problems arise.
Myth #1: “I don’t need a Lawyer if I’m Innocent”
This pervasive misconception stems from the logical thought that you don’t to pay someone to advocate for you if you already know you are innocent of the crime you are being charged with. The problem with this myth is that criminal law is anything but black and white. There are countless procedural nuances and evidentiary rules that someone not legally trained cannot hope to properly navigate. Even if you are completely innocent, you may run afoul of one of these rules and find yourself in a compromised position. This is why hiring an experienced criminal defense lawyer like Jack Litwak is so important if you get a criminal charge in Phoenix.
Myth #2: “I have to Answer all Police Questions”
Due to a variety of reasons, people answering questions from the police may feel compelled to “tell the truth” to officers, especially when some offices may make false promises of better treatment if you cooperate with them in this way. The real truth is that responding to police questions is an incredibly dangerous thing to do because people commonly incriminate themselves whether intentionally or unintentionally while answering questions. You have protection from the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to remain silent to avoid self-incriminating and police are generally required to read you your Miranda rights to this effect. Your best option is to affirmatively state your rights to the police and inform them you are invoking your right to remain silent and that you wish to speak to an attorney. Remember, just providing basic information to the police such as name and identification is generally not self-incriminating and you may be legally required to provide this information.
Myth #3: You Always Have the Ability to Refuse a Police Search
It is commonly known that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a rule against unreasonable searches and seizures, but this does not give an absolute right against any sort of police search. One example could be if the police have obtained a warrant from a judge to perform a search, in this situation, invoking the Fourth Amendment will not do you any good. Another is called the plain view doctrine, in which an officer is allowed to seize evidence or contraband that is in plain view during lawful observation. An example of the plain view doctrine in practice could be a police officer making a lawful stop of a car due to a traffic violation and then observing white powder and a firearm in the passenger seat of the car, which would give the officer legal authority to search the car to seize the drugs and firearm. Sometimes, it can be proven that a police search is unreasonable, but there are instances in which you cannot prevent it from taking place without running afoul of the law yourself.
Myth #4: Pleading Insane is a “Get Out of Jail Free Card”
One of the most common myths about criminal defense is that pleading insanity is helpful and will somehow get you out of criminal liability. A high-profile example of this misconception is Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland Florida school shooter who upon arrest and interrogation acted as though he was completely insane to relieve himself from liability. This did not work, and he now has a life-sentence in prison with no hope of parole. In Arizona we have Guilty Except Insane, or “GEI.” It is a difficult affirmative defense, as the accused is presumed sane. A person may be found guilty except insane if at the time of the commission of the criminal act the person was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that the person did not know the criminal act was wrong. Additionally, even if insanity is proven, the criminal defendant still serves a sentence of confinement, but in a mental health facility as opposed to a prison. Either way, your freedom is at risk.
