Resource Links

Beito & Lengeling, P.A. - Minneapolis DWI Attorney
Jay Tiftickjian - Criminal and DUI defense in Denver
James Alston - Houston Federal Criminal Attorney
Robert Flennaugh II - Seattle Criminal Attorney
Tad Nelson - Houston Criminal Lawyer
O'Brien Bower, P.A. - Tampa Criminal Attorney

Law Myths – In an effort to dispel many common myths associated with criminal law, we have listed and provided answers to popular myths for you. 

-  A case must be dismissed if the defendant is not read their rights when they are being arrested: FALSE. It is commonly believed that upon being arrested, the police are required to read the suspect the Miranda Warning. However, they are only obligated do so if the suspect is put in police custody and is scheduled for interrogation. Otherwise, they are not obligated to give the warning. In addition, if the suspect was supposed to be read the warning, but police failed to do so, the remedy is actually that the defendant may choose to suppress any statements made by in response to questioning by police.

- A person cannot be convicted if he/she did not have the drugs or weapon on their person: FALSE. It is a common believe that if a person throws the drugs before the police approaches that they cannot be convicted of drug possession. "Possession" under the criminal law is proved when it is shown that the item in question was located in an area that is under the "dominion and control" of the defendant, and that the defendant was aware it was there.

- A jury will think a defendant is guilty if he/she does not call witnesses: FALSE. Each jury is given instruction that the case may not be decided by the number of witness for the defendant or prosecutor, so the number of witnesses will essentially have no weight. On the contrary, often times calling a irrelevant witness solely for the purpose of having another witness has proved to have a negative impact on the defendant’s case.  The damages that can be caused effective cross-examination should not be underestimated.

- The defendant’s statement must be suppressed because he/she objected to answering police questions. FALSE. According to well-established law, the suspect is only able to avoid giving a statement by invoking their right to counsel. When this happens, police are prohibited from further interrogation until the suspect is provided with legal counsel. If a suspect merely states that he/she does not wish to answer police questions, police are allowed to try and persuade the suspect to answer. As long as there is no coercive behavior by police, the courts will not suppress the statement.

- If the defendant does not testify, the jury will think they are guilty: FALSE. A person charged with a crime not only has the constitutional right to remain silent, but also has a constitutional right to testify. By law, the judge is required to inform the defendant of these rights during the trial. If the defendant does not testify, the judge will instruct the jury that every defendant has an absolute constitutional right not to testify, and that the jury may not consider the defendant's decision not to testify in any way during their deliberations. On the other hand, if the defendant does testify the judge will instruct the jury to consider his testimony in the same manner as any other witness.