If a detective gets me to answer a statement that is absolutely false....

[concernedguyind]

What is the name of your state?DC
I was arrested for receiving stolen property. Like a dumbass, I went upstairs and talked to a detective, w/out my lawyer, who asked me if I "wanted to "cooperate"......
Anyway, he asked me to sign a statement that said "you said you believed when you bought the bike from Mr. X, that he had stolen it".....I said wait, I can't sign that, because I didn't say that......
then it became a whole "well, you knew there was some chance that it had been stolen, put down what percentage chance you thought".....
I said hell if I know what chance it was that the item (bicycle) had been stolen, because I had never met Mr. X before, I guess it was a 50% chance it was stolen, and a 50% chance it was not stolen......
but what the detective told me to write, and I did, was "there was a 50/50 chance that the bike was stolen when I bought it".....
My lawyer is telling me that statement damned me, and that I should take their plea offer (misdemeanor charge, instead of a felony).....
Is my lawyer correct, did I doom myself?

 

[stephenk]

you blew it.

 

[concernedguyind]

are you sure, look, if the detective had put......

another false statement in front of me, say, "you knew Mr. X had received the bike as a birthday present", I would have, again, said I can't sign that ****, because I didn't say that.
If the jackass detective pressed me, again, on a percentage, I would have signed "There's a 50/50 chance Mr. X received the bike as a birthday present" (or wedding present, he inherited it, whatever), the point being I had never met Mr. X before, and I had no clue how he obtains his property.

 

[concernedguyind]

c'mon, i need more opinions!......

I want 12 responses, I will consider you guys my "jury of my peers".....the prosecution has offered to plea bargain: if I plead guillty, they knock the charge down to misdemeanor, and recommend probation.
But my instincts are that I'm innocent, I don't want to plead guilty to a damn thing.

 

[CdwJava]

Here's how a jury is going to see it ... if you met this stranger, and he offered you an obviously outstanding deal on something that was worth much more than you were expected to pay for it, then common sense would say that this is wrong.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you are getting a bike at half retail (or whatever it was) that there is a good likelihood that it was hot.

The manner of your meeting and contact with Mr. X can also look bad. If you met him in a dark alley or were referred by a pal who said, "I know a guy who knows a guy who can get you a great deal .. just don't ask any questions," then you are in trouble.

- Carl

 

[aquaticmami]

Retraction of signed statement

Can't you retract a statement with an explanation you were misled or didn't understand the statement the detective wrote up for you to sign? It seems so many people do this.

The question probably is did you know the bike was stolen? Did you sense it was? Or did the detective assume you did? Only you know the answer to the first two questions.

Not everyone assumes the worst in others when they capitalize on a good deal. If that were the case, Ebay would cease to exist.

 

[stealth2]

This is "the rest of the story" https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=224667

 

[concernedguyind]

rather than retracting, my I can elaborate on my statement?....

This is exactly what transpired in the detective's office:
Q(detective): You said when you bought the bike, you knew it was stolen. Is this true?

A(me): No, I can't sign that, because I didn't say that.

Q: Well, you knew there was a chance it was stolen, what percentage chance did you think (that it was stolen)?

A: How would I know, I guess there was a 50% that it was stolen, 50% that it wasn't.

Q(Detective): Put that then, "I believed that there was a 50% chance that the bike was stolen when I bought it"

And I did....now, is that coercion or somethin'?

 

[CdwJava]

No, it's not coersion.

When you take the stand in your own defense, you can explain that the detective misquoted you, got it wrong, put words in your mouth, etc. When he is on the stand your attorney can try and bring this up on cross examination to cast doubts on what was said and how it was written.

The problem is, you signed the statement. This is pretty tough to counter. The only way you can effectively do that will be to take the stand, and if you do the prosecutor can hit you pretty hard on cross examination.

I see that the elements of the offense have been met. Given the facts as you areticulated them in your other post, I would say that you have no good defense - only a Hail mary pass.

I'm not an attorney, but I'd suggest you look for a deal.

- Carl

 

[aquaticmami]

The OPs original message would make him innocent in my mind

I believe this is a case of coercion. The OP bought a bike in a pawn shop after the owner turned down the pawn shop price. This would indicate to any normal person, not dealing with crimes on a regular basis, that the pawn shop owner probably assumed the bike wasn't stolen either. He would be in a better position to determine if the bike was stolen or not than a layperson. Again, it sounds like everyone is suspect from the last post, when most of us are innocent people who do not know the ins and outs of stolen merchandise. If I were on that jury, I'd find the OP innocent based on what was said here. I wouldn't automatically assume that a person was pawning stolen merchandise. The coercion lies in the fact the detective tried to convince the OP of something different than what the OP had stated. I'd certainly have my attorney cross examine the detective and ask why he didn't accept the OPs original answer and what his motive was. Also, another factor that would influence my decision as a jury member would lie in the OPs previous record. If it were clean, that would tell me everything. Most people don't run around assuming the worst in others. A detective might and that's understandable given the nature of his or her work. But that's not normal human behavior.

 

[CdwJava]

It's still not coercion:

From Webster's:

: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will; also : the defense that one acted under coercion

The detective did not apparently use coercion. He may have re-phrased the statement to skew it in his favor, but this is not coercion.

And you may be right that a jury might find him not guilty ... depending on the other circumstances. Frankly, I can't see how a single act like that could make a compeling case so I can only assume that there is something more that we are not being told by the OP or that the police have additional information (right or wrong) concerning the OP or his actions on that day.

But, to prove his innocence the OP might have to take the stand to counter the written statement. This can be very damaging.

Ultimately it's his call.

- Carl

 

[aquaticmami]

Under Websters it is coercion

Arrest or the nature of being detained is intimidating behavior by all measures of the concept and definition of coercion, and it does place a person in immediate fear. Especially, when the detective is trying to coerce the detained to sign a sworn statement about something he or she did not say.

I'm only basing my analysis on the facts here. There are too many variables that could have happened both from the OP and the detective. I'm not assuming the worst in either.

 

[concernedguyind]

the prosecutor can "hit me pretty hard"?!

the prosecutor can hit you pretty hard on cross examination.


- Carl

You mean, harder than the detective did? If you hit me hard enough, I suppose that I'll admit to stealin' the damn bike myself!
Hit me still harder, and I might just confess to shootin' Kennedy!

 

[CdwJava]

You mean, harder than the detective did? If you hit me hard enough, I suppose that I'll admit to stealin' the damn bike myself!
Hit me still harder, and I might just confess to shootin' Kennedy!

Okay, take the stand then. It doesn't matter to me. No matter how you slice it, beating a signed statement is not going to be all that easy to do.

- Carl

 

[aquaticmami]

Prosecutors and cases like this

You mean, harder than the detective did? If you hit me hard enough, I suppose that I'll admit to stealin' the damn bike myself!
Hit me still harder, and I might just confess to shootin' Kennedy!

To be honest, from what has been stated here, I doubt any prosecutor worth his or her salt would waste the court's time on this case. If the OP has no other arrest record, they'd mediate it out, before wasting the taxpayer's money on a case with so little evidence against the OP. Especially if the pawnshop owner was prepared to defend the OP.

When I volunteered on a committee of citizens overseeing the budget for our Prosecutor's office, there were other mediation stages required for cases like this rather than wasting taxpayer's money on trials the prosecutor would probably end up losing.

The purpose of the mediation process was to:

Open a dialogue
Foster mutual understanding and cooperation between law enforcement and "offender," emphasizing improved relationships
Clarifying issues and concerns involved in the dispute
Exploring avenues for mutual resolution of issues and concerns

There may be an intake conference. But I doubt it would go to the prosecution stage. The purpose is to keep law abiding citizens from having a criminal history, rather than vice versa, especially when there is only circumstantial evidence against the "offender." Trials are expensive and the courts don't like having their time wasted. With the salaries involved for a court case alone, it's much less expensive to find an alternative solution such as mediation for cases like this.

I really doubt the OP has anything to sweat if he has a clean record. The OP also has made a good point. Lean on a person nervous enough from being arrested and he or she may confess to anything. That's why sworn statements are only as good as the cooperation of the person signing them.