How to go about pressing 5th Amendment violation?

[TigerD]

It might be fun for the OP to tell the cops that he was home alone at the time of the crime. If the cops think he has no alibi, they may try to frame the OP for the crime (for example, with a witness who lies and says he saw the OP committing the crime).

Then, in court, the OP can surprise the police and prosecutors with video evidence of the OP's trip to Las Vegas. The police and the prosecutors will be discredited.

Mr. Mt_Vernon when you told the officers you were home alone that wasn't correct (was it?).
You were not home alone (were you?).
You told this story to several officers at several different times.
Your story was not true when you told it the first time.
Your story was not true when you told it the second time.
Your story was not true when you told it the third time.
You lied to the police about your whereabouts.
You repeatedly lied to several police officers about your whereabouts.
We can agree you are a liar.
You claim now to have an alibi.
Now you say you were at XXXX.
You lied about your whereabouts.


You would be halfway to guilty - over a stupid lie.

TD

 

[CdwJava]

It might be fun for the OP to tell the cops that he was home alone at the time of the crime. If the cops think he has no alibi, they may try to frame the OP for the crime (for example, with a witness who lies and says he saw the OP committing the crime).

Then, in court, the OP can surprise the police and prosecutors with video evidence of the OP's trip to Las Vegas. The police and the prosecutors will be discredited.

WHY would the cops LIE about it? And WHY would they try to frame the OP?

If the OP did not tell them about the trip to Vegas, and all the evidence they had said he did it, then they still would have acted on good faith and with the evidence they had. It would be stupid and expensive for the OP to wait all the way until a trial before revealing exculpatory evidence. So, realistically, it would never get that far. His defense attorney would turn over any such evidence or info pretty quick in the process.

As it was, he was never charged, so it's moot and merely insulting speculation to imply that they would set about to frame the OP even without ANY inkling that this was even considered.

 

[Mt_Vernon]

Mr. Mt_Vernon when you told the officers you were home alone that wasn't correct (was it?).

I was running a sting operation on the officers. I wanted the officers to think I had no alibi. I wanted to see what kind of fraudulent evidence the officers would cook up against me.

In reality, I have a very solid alibi. I have videotape evidence that I was far from the crime scene when the crime occurred. And now we have proof that the officers, and their witness, are dishonest.

 

[CdwJava]

I was running a sting operation on the officers. I wanted the officers to think I had no alibi. I wanted to see what kind of fraudulent evidence the officers would cook up against me.

In reality, I have a very solid alibi. I have videotape evidence that I was far from the crime scene when the crime occurred. And now we have proof that the officers, and their witness, are dishonest.

What does YOUR case (whatever it is) have to do with the OP's???

 

[CavemanLawyer]

I was running a sting operation on the officers. I wanted the officers to think I had no alibi. I wanted to see what kind of fraudulent evidence the officers would cook up against me.

In reality, I have a very solid alibi. I have videotape evidence that I was far from the crime scene when the crime occurred. And now we have proof that the officers, and their witness, are dishonest.

Just fyi, officers are allowed to lie during interrogations and they are allowed to "cook up" fraudulent evidence in those interrogations. There is nothing remotely improper about an officer stating things like "we already have your DNA or we have you on surveillance doing the crime, etc..." in an attempt to trick the suspect into telling the truth. Of course this only works if the suspect is actually guilty.

 

[dave33]

Just fyi, officers are allowed to lie during interrogations and they are allowed to "cook up" fraudulent evidence in those interrogations. There is nothing remotely improper about an officer stating things like "we already have your DNA or we have you on surveillance doing the crime, etc..." in an attempt to trick the suspect into telling the truth. Of course this only works if the suspect is actually guilty.

It may also work with someone who has no experience in the criminal justice system. One of those people who trusts the police and cannot think of a reason why the police would lie. This of course isn't going to work against Donald Trump, but a young scared kid with threats of life in prison and other abuses, I believe it's been done before.

 

[Mt_Vernon]

Just fyi, officers are allowed to lie during interrogations and they are allowed to "cook up" fraudulent evidence in those interrogations.

I was talking about what the police would cook up for court. If the police brought into court a lying witness, the witness and the police would be exposed when I presented my evidence.

 

[cbg]

As would you - exposed as a liar.

 

[Mt_Vernon]

As would you - exposed as a liar.

Perhaps. But, because police officers' testimony is routinely used to jail people, I think that their lies will be much more significant than mine.

 

[TigerD]

Perhaps. But, because police officers' testimony is routinely used to jail people, I think that their lies will be much more significant than mine.

Good luck with that. You can write a tell-all from prison.