ex-Speaker Hastert Indicted

[Kamakazie Sith]

In a perfect world police, judges, and juries would understand that invoking your right to remain silent or refusing to testify in your own defense isn't admitting to a crime and shouldn't be in any way suspicious; but we don't live in a perfect world, so remaining silent isn't a good way to defend yourself against criminal charges.

Lying about what you were doing to make yourself look less guilty, even if you are innocent, isn't a great way either.

[Simon_Jester]

In a perfect world police, judges, and juries would understand that invoking your right to remain silent or refusing to testify in your own defense isn't admitting to a crime and shouldn't be in any way suspicious; but we don't live in a perfect world, so remaining silent isn't a good way to defend yourself against criminal charges.

Thing is, it's actually literally in the rules that they can't treat that as evidence you committed a crime. Plenty of people are found innocent without having to go up and testify "I didn't do it."

Plus, you seem to be arguing that because sometimes law enforcement and juries might in some nebulous way punish you for not testifying...

The natural response, obviously, is to commit a highly illegal action that undermines the entire function of the judiciary!

This is silly. It is to the legal system what trigger-happy people who say that "stand your ground" laws justify shooting anyone who looks at them funny are to personal interactions.
_______

Again, as far as I can tell you're proposing to make it 'not perjury' to make up a false story under oath, so long as you expect the false story to get you declared innocent.

The only purpose that would serve is to make defendants who do choose to give "I didn't do it" testimony totally unbelievable, because literally every criminal would be making similar testimony, including (especially!) the ones who are lying.

[Grumman]

The main motivating factor behind this seems to be a widespread popular dislike of criminals (understandable) that gets in the way of actually preventing crime and making criminals into functional members of society (not so understandable).

No, that is understandable too. There may be a generalised benefit to allowing convicted criminals the opportunity to make themselves functional members of society, but the cost of doing so is borne by individuals. Given the choice between two applicants for a job, why would I ever pick the one whose references tell me in no uncertain terms that he cannot be trusted to follow instructions?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, what I was referring to is more the unwillingness to even pay for attempts to resocialize criminals. Those costs are not borne by individuals... and yet they are not paid. And when someone proposes to pay them, they are opposed by "tough on crime" politicians.

[Beowulf]

This is all besides the point. Hastert wasn't charged with perjury (lying under oath to a court), but for lying to a federal investigator (when he wasn't under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

KS, how convenient would it be to be able to lock someone away for a year for lying to you? It doesn't even have to be a lie you believe for a microsecond. ("I've never touched that gun!" "You threw it into the bushes in front of me.")

It doesn't even really have to be a lie. It just has to be something that the investigator can show to be a lie (eyewitnesses are great for this, because people have terrible memory). "It wasn't me! I was in jail that day!" "We've got an eyewitness that puts you at the crime scene."

[Simon_Jester]

I would say that lying to a federal investigator at least merits further investigation. It is not a matter that should be lightly shrugged off, lest it become impossible for the Feds to investigate anyone.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is all besides the point. Hastert wasn't charged with perjury (lying under oath to a court), but for lying to a federal investigator (when he wasn't under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

KS, how convenient would it be to be able to lock someone away for a year for lying to you? It doesn't even have to be a lie you believe for a microsecond. ("I've never touched that gun!" "You threw it into the bushes in front of me.")

It doesn't even really have to be a lie. It just has to be something that the investigator can show to be a lie (eyewitnesses are great for this, because people have terrible memory). "It wasn't me! I was in jail that day!" "We've got an eyewitness that puts you at the crime scene."

I think locking it in at a year would be unreasonable. The sentence should depend on the matter being investigated. So, it should range from a fine to jail time maybe even prison if the offense is serious enough, like murder.

[Beowulf]

This is all besides the point. Hastert wasn't charged with perjury (lying under oath to a court), but for lying to a federal investigator (when he wasn't under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

KS, how convenient would it be to be able to lock someone away for a year for lying to you? It doesn't even have to be a lie you believe for a microsecond. ("I've never touched that gun!" "You threw it into the bushes in front of me.")

It doesn't even really have to be a lie. It just has to be something that the investigator can show to be a lie (eyewitnesses are great for this, because people have terrible memory). "It wasn't me! I was in jail that day!" "We've got an eyewitness that puts you at the crime scene."

I think locking it in at a year would be unreasonable. The sentence should depend on the matter being investigated. So, it should range from a fine to jail time maybe even prison if the offense is serious enough, like murder.

It's actually up to 8 years that you can be imprisoned under Section 1001. One year is what you get if you're rich and have no criminal record. See Martha Stewart. And it's any lie at all, not even requiring that they be really convincing ones, or whatever the underlying crime is. You can go to trial with that as the sole count of the indictment against you.

And it doesn't actually have to be a lie. Just something an agent can prove is a lie. In the above example, where the guy claims he was in jail? There have been at least one case where the prime suspect actually was in jail when the crime occurred, but an eyewitness placed him there at the crime.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is all besides the point. Hastert wasn't charged with perjury (lying under oath to a court), but for lying to a federal investigator (when he wasn't under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

KS, how convenient would it be to be able to lock someone away for a year for lying to you? It doesn't even have to be a lie you believe for a microsecond. ("I've never touched that gun!" "You threw it into the bushes in front of me.")

It doesn't even really have to be a lie. It just has to be something that the investigator can show to be a lie (eyewitnesses are great for this, because people have terrible memory). "It wasn't me! I was in jail that day!" "We've got an eyewitness that puts you at the crime scene."

I think locking it in at a year would be unreasonable. The sentence should depend on the matter being investigated. So, it should range from a fine to jail time maybe even prison if the offense is serious enough, like murder.

It's actually up to 8 years that you can be imprisoned under Section 1001. One year is what you get if you're rich and have no criminal record. See Martha Stewart. And it's any lie at all, not even requiring that they be really convincing ones, or whatever the underlying crime is. You can go to trial with that as the sole count of the indictment against you.

Max sentencing is a rare thing. Though I thought you were asking me what I think it should be and not what I thought the federal law was.

And it doesn't actually have to be a lie. Just something an agent can prove is a lie. In the above example, where the guy claims he was in jail? There have been at least one case where the prime suspect actually was in jail when the crime occurred, but an eyewitness placed him there at the crime.

That's ridiculous but I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying that this law shouldn't exist because abuse and/or irrational circumstances happen?

[Adam Reynolds]

As a general response to Dominus Atheos, there is no benefit to saying anything in your defense regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. The reality of hearsay law is that any statement made in your defense cannot be used to help you, even if found true by investigators. It can only be used to convict you. Obviously you can state true statements in your defense at trial, but the police cannot corroborate this even if you told them the same thing. And it is not as if you can possibly talk your way out of being arrested.

It doesn't even really have to be a lie. It just has to be something that the investigator can show to be a lie (eyewitnesses are great for this, because people have terrible memory). "It wasn't me! I was in jail that day!" "We've got an eyewitness that puts you at the crime scene."

This is the second largest problem with talking(even exempting Title 18 Sec. 1001). Even if it were possible for statements to police to benefit you, it is too easy to fall into the trap so commonly seen in mystery fiction. "I never said it was poison" is a trope for a reason. It is far to easy to make a statement that is either found incorrect by police* or that makes you look guilty by admitting means, motive, or opportunity.
* Regardless of whether the police were right or wrong in their investigation.

There is a great and rather well known video from Professor Dwayne of Regent University Law School that goes into this issue:

No, that is understandable too. There may be a generalised benefit to allowing convicted criminals the opportunity to make themselves functional members of society, but the cost of doing so is borne by individuals. Given the choice between two applicants for a job, why would I ever pick the one whose references tell me in no uncertain terms that he cannot be trusted to follow instructions?

How is this any different than any other issue involving public good vs the benefit for companies? It would also be better for a company to not hire disabled persons or to do things that benefit the environment. That doesn't mean there aren't means to incentivize those. There are entire companies that have their business around hiring disabled employees. Why not have similar companies that focus on hiring reformed criminals(for things like tax breaks) and have standards to deal with the potential issues?

[Beowulf]

Though I thought you were asking me what I think it should be and not what I thought the federal law was.

I was asking if it would be convenient, as a police officer, to have an easy to prove crime that you can throw at bad guys. And although you didn't answer that question precisely, it appears your answer would be yes.

And it doesn't actually have to be a lie. Just something an agent can prove is a lie. In the above example, where the guy claims he was in jail? There have been at least one case where the prime suspect actually was in jail when the crime occurred, but an eyewitness placed him there at the crime.

That's ridiculous but I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying that this law shouldn't exist because abuse and/or irrational circumstances happen?

Of course it's ridiculous. The problem with Section 1001 isn't that abuse of it happens. It's that abuse of it is the entire point of it. The only two uses of it are to hit someone that they weren't able to hit for an actual crime (Martha Stewart), and to get a cherry on top for a conviction of something else (in Hastert's case, money transfer structuring). They almost certainly had everything they needed for the structuring charge, and the only reason to have Hastert in for questioning was to get him to talk, and lie about something.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I was asking if it would be convenient, as a police officer, to have an easy to prove crime that you can throw at bad guys. And although you didn't answer that question precisely, it appears your answer would be yes.

Yes, I suppose my answer would be yes. Who doesn't like something easy to do? My point though was that the crime, regardless of how easy to prove, should be shown to cause some type of harm and it the punishment should be proportional. Not "oh you say you didn't do it well here is evidence that you did do it. Enjoy your additional charge". The lie should be shown to have caused some type of obstruction.

Of course it's ridiculous. The problem with Section 1001 isn't that abuse of it happens. It's that abuse of it is the entire point of it. The only two uses of it are to hit someone that they weren't able to hit for an actual crime (Martha Stewart), and to get a cherry on top for a conviction of something else (in Hastert's case, money transfer structuring). They almost certainly had everything they needed for the structuring charge, and the only reason to have Hastert in for questioning was to get him to talk, and lie about something.

What other use would there be for a law designed to make lying a crime? If the prosecutor can prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt then I don't see the problem. If the prosecution is ignoring evidence that exonerates the defendant (guy being in jail during a criminal episode) then that is abuse. It's not the law working as intended or written.

[Beowulf]

The problem is that "bad guy" is in the eye of the beholder. And the only thing that has to be proven with Section 1001 is that what the defendant said differs from the prosecutor's set of provable "facts", and the defendant said something about an investigation. What a defendant says will never help them in an interrogation. Why make it even more hazardous for a defendant?

Cops are allowed to lie to suspects. Why shouldn't suspects be allowed to lie to cops? It's not going to make the cops job much harder if they're honest, because they still should be looking for exculpatory evidence as well as inculpatory.

And if the cops can't come up with the underlying case for the prosecution, should the prosecutors really be able to use a chickenshit "lying to the cops" charge to send someone to jail? And if they can, why does the chickenshit charge matter? It's nice if people incriminate themselves, but the cops shouldn't be depending on people failing to shut-up to make their cases.

Now, lying to cops saying that a crime has been committed, when, in fact, no crime has been committed, is a different story.

[Simon_Jester]

As a general response to Dominus Atheos, there is no benefit to saying anything in your defense regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. The reality of hearsay law is that any statement made in your defense cannot be used to help you, even if found true by investigators. It can only be used to convict you. Obviously you can state true statements in your defense at trial, but the police cannot corroborate this even if you told them the same thing. And it is not as if you can possibly talk your way out of being arrested.

The situation with a set of federal investigators is or can be a bit different. As I understand it, depending on circumstances, they really may have discretionary power to decide whether or not you get arrested, for instance. That doesn't make it smart to talk to them without an attorney present but it can easily make it necessary and wise to talk to them.

But a lot of the same rules apply, as you note- for example, the "I never said it was poison" problem.

The basic catch I see with Dominus Atheos's reasoning, though, is that even if we say "the law should be changed to enable people to speak to the police with less fear of being incriminated by innocent statements!" it does NOT follow that "the law should be changed to make it consequence-free to lie to police and federal investigators while they're in the process of an investigation!"

And that latter bit is DA's argument (and seems to be Beowulf's). Some minimal standard of making "obstructing the investigation" or "lying to law enforcement" punishable is a practical necessity if we are ever to get law enforcement to investigate anything at all.

Now, the valid argument here is that the legal latitude granted to police during investigation is so broad that it's undermined social trust to a degree where it becomes very hard to see how having the police ask you a question can ever be anything other than a bad thing, and why people should willingly cooperate with them. And one might argue that

But there's a difference between "reduce the level of 'dirty tricks' and 'stab the interrogated subject in the back for trying to be honest and clear things up" on the one hand, and "make it legal to outright make shit up for the benefit of the cops and the FBI" on the other hand.