Comments for

Comment on Got DUI? by Guy Seymore

Guy Seymore — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:54:43 +0000

Great post most don’t realize that they have a chance to fight and clear their name of a DUI charge. Also most don’t understand that an officer can site you for a DUI with little evidence. Keep up the good work.

Comment on Hug a Defense Attorney by Guy Seymore

Guy Seymore — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:16:50 +0000

Interesting perspective. I really enjoyed the response to this blog. Thanks again.

Comment on Got DUI? by Elvis Sharrai

Elvis Sharrai — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:31:21 +0000

Extremely great article, genuinely educational stuff. Never thought I would discover the tips I want in this article. I have been scouring all around the web for a while now and was starting to get disappointed. Luckily, I came onto your website and acquired exactly what I had been searching for.

Comment on Hug a Defense Attorney by BA

BA — Sat, 23 May 2009 17:12:14 +0000

Innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. I don’t see a problem in the general public assuming someone is probably guilty of the crime they have been charged with when there is credible evidence that they committed the crime. The judge and jury don’t have this luxury, but the general public can make educated guess based on the facts they see.

If everyone in the world sees someone commit a crime – then they committed the crime. They are guilty of that bad act; the State may not be able to prove its case, but the guy is still a criminal.

I have no problem with defense attorneys and I think they play a vital role in our democracy. However, I disagree that people should ask themselves why the cop is hassling some guy rather than wondering what the guy did to get hassled. Police are also guardians of the the constitution and the laws that have been enacted thereunder. They just view their responsibilities from different perspectives.

Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a cop apologist – that youtube clip of the police tazing that preacher were ridiculous. I think everyone needs to held to the same standard.

Anyway, my main point is that just because someone isn’t legally guilty doesn’t mean they’re not factually guilty. I would not like to live next to a pedophile that was exonerated due to illegal search and seizure. And I’m pretty sure if my kid later got victimized by that pedophile that I would feel that justice to a higher law was served when the pervert got off.

This is a fun continuation of our conversation in the Tree Room kitchen five or six years ago.

Comment on Police interrogation: confession good for the soul. NOT!!! by mesplin

mesplin — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:18:43 +0000

I just got involved in a case involving allegations of child abuse where the investigating officer sent two detectives to my client’s place of employment who just wanted “take him to the police station for questioning”. The client has some mental health impairment. Although not handcuffed, he was placed into the back of an unmarked police vehicle and transported to the Provo police station where he was locked in an interview room for 5 to 10 minutes before the investigating officer appeared to question him. After informing the client that he was not under arrest and was “free to leave”, the officer conducted a heated and accusatory interrogation session which resulted in my client ultimately making some incriminatory statements. He was then “arrested” and taken to jail.

Comment on Police interrogation: confession good for the soul. NOT!!! by nyalbodily

nyalbodily — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:45:03 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. The biggest lie out there is that if suspects are “cooperative” things will go “a lot better for them”. That is simply not true and lots of people are surprised when I tell them that police don’t have to be honest. Deception is an “investigative technique”. Interesting.