Georgia Criminal Trial and Appellate Law Blog

Here's What Happens When You Overcome the Fear

I got a great story from a fantastic public defender in Atlanta in response to my recent blog post.  Sometimes, when you make a record, you don't even need to appeal.  You give the judge the opportunity to help you win.

Scott,

 

I think that there is another reason some objections do not get raised:  strong belief that the objection or motion will not be granted b/c it has never been granted before.  This is kind of like fear, maybe a close first cousin?  My experience in trial yesterday taught me that I am susceptible to making this rookie mistake.

 

In case you are interested, here's the scenario:  Fulton County State Court judges allow the alleged victim to stay in the courtroom even when the rule is invoked.  Never had the rule enforced against a victim.  And, I don't think I've ever seen a case where the failure to exercise discretion to keep the victim out has been successfully appealed.  So I skipped this motion yesterday, almost skipped it, that is.  [Read on to see how bad a mistake that would have been.]  I went straight to a motion in limine to keep the victim from sitting at counsel table, an abhorrant practice that is allowed by the majority of State Court judges here, unless specifically objected to, and sometimes is allowed even over objection.  The judge granted the motion.  So, I thought to myself, what the hell, ask that the rule apply to her, too.  And, to my great surprise,  the judge granted THAT motion and said that she could not sit in on the officer's testimony.

 

Well, the officer testified first, and on redirect, the solicitor asked him to point to the victim, and, shocked, I turned to see that she WAS IN THE COURTROOM.  We approached, the solicitor claimed he didn't "understand" the ruling, the judge sided with me and we checked the court reporter's tape, and yes, I was right and it was clear as day, no ambiguity at all, that the judge had said she could not be in the courtroom.  [of course, it was another dumb mistake of mine not to check the courtroom to make sure she was not there, a mistake I will not make again.]

 

My client did NOT want a mistrial, he had family support from Kentucky and Carrollton and he needed closure.  Case was sufficiently serious (at leas the solicitor thought so as the offer on a plea was 12 months to serve, no two for one)and I was tempted to move for mistrial over the client's objection, but the family was adamant, even when I explained the appellate ramifications of NOT asking.  (The judge had clearly indicated that if I moved for a mistrial, that the motion would be granted.) I told the judge that the bell couldn't be unrung, that the woman had already heard the testimony and the damage was done, that my client really wanted his day in court NOW, that I was not moving for a mistrial because he and the family were from out of town and could not come back the next day, but that I did want a limiting instruction.  Then, I thought, well, why not reach for the brass ring and ask for her to be excluded as a witness?  It'll never be granted, and the denial will not be reversible, but what the hell, make the record just in case.  So I did, and the motion was granted.  To say that I was dumbstruck is an understatement.  She was the only witness to the actual crime (Pub Indecency and Stalking:  allegedly driving down Peachtree St while masturbating; or DWWO as I affectionately call it.)

 

To make a long story short (I know, too late, WAAAYYY too late), we got a directed verdict of acquittal.

 

 

Melissa M. Nelson

New blog post up at www.scottkey.typepad.com on the number one thing preventing lawyers from making a good appellate record and how to defeat it. It is a preview of my CLE talk next week.

Fear: The Real Reason You Aren't Making a Record on Appeal

Nearly every talk I have ever seen on preserving a record on appeal is remarkably boring.  Next week, I am giving such a talk at a continuing legal education seminar in Atlanta to a group of DUI attorneys.  In an effort not to be boring, I have given some thought to why a topic so vital is also a topic that is so boring.  Here's my conclusion.  Every talk on the topic launches right into the law.  After a few minutes of being told that you need to object and file motions, the topic begins sounding irrelevant.  The reason is that there are some basic psychological issues at play that should be addressed in any discussion of preserving a record for appeal.

To demonstrate the point, think of the last time you were at trial and a situation arose where you failed to preserve the record.  A witness was on the stand testifying.  The prosecutor was up asking a question.  The question was improper, and you see that the answer is about to be equally as improper.  The judge has already demonstrated that he is in a bad mood.  Perhaps he said something abrupt to a juror who came in five minutes late.  The microphones didn't work.  A dvd didn't play.  Somebody in the audience smirked.  You know it's a bad day.  So, the improper question is asked, and the really incriminating and improper answer is on its way.  Meanwhile, you have this internal mental conversation:  "I think that's wrong, but I'm not sure what's legally wrong with it.  Man, that judge is in a bad mood today.  Maybe it won't be all that bad.  Maybe the witness is not going to say what I think he is about to say anyhow.  I think I'm probably winning.  I don't want to look dumb here.  I think I can win anyway.  What was the question, oh wait.  Well, he said it already."  

I read many transcripts, and I think that if they came with a transcript of the trial attorney's thoughts, they would read something like that.  Really, though, if transcripts came with a deep psychological, Dr. Freud widget, they would read like this, "I'm really afraid I will look dumb.  I am afraid this judge is going to humiliate me in front of my client, this jury, and everyone in this room.  I am afraid that I will be shown not to be very good at this.  If I just sit here, I don't have to worry about being judged."  Fear is the real reason records are not being preserved for appeal.  There may be other reasons, but I think that fear is the primary thing.  So, in this blog post, and in my talk next week, I want to discuss how to move past the fear and to incorporate a few practices to work with the fear to make objection, get rulings, and to give appellate counsel (whether appellate counsel is you or someone else) some tools on appeal.

1. Name the fear  -- You don't have to tell your client or anyone else for that matter.  Name it to yourself on paper preferably but at least out loud.  In words of that great legal scholar, Yoda, "Named must your fear be before banish it you can."  At the heart of the objections you don't make, the motions you don't file, and the mistrial for which you don't move is the fear of being judged and being found inadequate.  In any normal trial situation, these dynamics are at play.  Add to the mix a tyrannical or bullying judge, an unpopular client, or a difficult cause or case, and the situation is even more frightening.  Ever since law school, you have been trained to pretend the fear of being judged is no longer there.  It started out when you had to play it cool in some of the more uncomfortable moments of Socratic method Hell, when talking to classmates about grades, and things like that.  It continues when you try to act fearless so that your client will feel comfortable enough with you to hire you or to keep you on.  Perhaps there was a bullying parent or teacher when you were growing up who has morphed into the tyrant with the robe or the bully for the state who is not playing by the rules.  Maybe, in your mind, making this objection means no more good plea offers for deserving clients who can't go to trial.  Maybe nobody will sit with you at the next bar meeting.  Maybe you will get verbally beaten up right there in front of God and everybody.  In such situations, you don't object.  Even worse, the creative side of your brain that helps you think about the law in an innovative way, that helps you come up with fun legal points, the part that helps you spot the issues is being shut down by the critical side of the brain.  At a more primal level, the judge staring at you from on high is the African lion standing before you on the plains about a million years ago ready to attack.  If you aren't aware of these psychological dynamics, your brain won't be free to even know to object.  Write down the fear.  Know it is there.
2. Think through the objections before trial --  As you read the discovery and develop trial strategy, it will become clear what things you don't want said about your client or what evidence you would like to keep out of the trial.  Write a list of that evidence on a whiteboard or post-it notes and put them up.  Go over them with your client or a helpful colleague.  Think up ways you could possible keep the evidence or testimony out.  Even if you think your challenge won't work, make the challenge (as long is it is not ridiculously frivolous).  Brainstorm ways that the evidence might not be admissible.  Let the brain run non-stop.  Don't let the critical side tell you it won't work.  Just list, list, list.  When you have generated the list, then turn the critical side on and look for caselaw.  What survives can be your objections well thought out in the privacy of your own office discussed with friendly staff, family or colleagues.
3. Take the Bully's audience away -- File your objections as a motion in limine and set them down on a motions calendar where no jurors will be and where your judge doesn't have an audience.  It takes away much of his incentive to bully you and guarantees you at worst that he'll just say "overruled," and an objection overruled is an appellate lawyer's best friend.  
4. Be Very Nice / Sheepish if You Can -- A judge still has the power to try to show you up, to show you he's the center of attention, or that he is boss.  There is nothing you can do to prevent it.  So, don't yell back.  Don't roll your eyes.  Just hang in there, make your objection, and nicely ask if you are being overruled.  To quote the Old Testament Proverb, "a kind voice turns away wrath."  In fact, jurors will sometimes sympathize with you in such situations.  The nicer you are the  bigger bully he seems.  Ask any lawyer why they hate trying a case against a pro se opponent, and they will tell you that the sympathy factor can quickly go to an underdog.
5. Make sure you are getting ruling and not pseudo rulings -- Sustained, overruled, denied, granted, I won't allow it, I will allow it, are ruling words.  "Move along counselor," "Ask your next question," "I note your objection," are manipulative phrases masquerading as rulings.  Make sure you sheepishly (see 4 above) ask for rulings when you get fake rulings.

There's a whole body of law on how to preserve a record, but before you go there spend some time with your fear and learning ways around or through it to preserve the best record for appeal.

A Productive Recess

It has been a lengthy hiatus but a productive one. In the time I have been away I now have a new son and have crossed some important milestones in my practice.

The son is Benjamin Davis Key, a perfect baby boy born on September 10. I would never have guessed I would be the patriarch of a family of five. We are a household of many smiles and yawns.

I was honored to have been chosen one of twelve lawyers on the Fulton Daily Report's On the Rise edition for criminal appellate advocacy.

I authored an amicus brief on behalf of GACDL encouraging the grant of interlocutory appeal. The case, Mussman v. State, was chosen for interlocutory review.

Last week, I won an unwinnable case and saved my client a twenty-year sentence after turning down a plea recommendation for fifteen years to serve. That feat deserves its own post.

No posts In a while, but I have not been bored.

The Zen of Arizona v. Gant

I could kick myself.  I just re-read the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, and I am annoyed because I could have had these facts before the Court had my client not plead.  Why is my case not in the pipeline; better yet, why is my case not the Gant case?  In a nutshell, the Court held in Gant that the police could not search a car pursuant to arrest unless the arrestee had access to the car at the time of the search.  The Court undid about a million assumptions about how those facts should go.  Ironically, the holding makes perfect sense.

The Court limited its holding in an earlier case, Belton v. New Jersey, that allowed police to search the a car if the client was in it at some point before his arrest even if he was arrested 100 feet from the car, was handcuffed, and looking out from the lock doors of the police cruiser. 

I bet that, if you are reading this case and you are a lawyer, you are amazed at the ruling.  You may have even plead a client with these facts, or maybe you stopped short of a United States Supreme Court cert. petition thinking that such a step would be fruitless.  

By contrast, I bet if you are not a lawyer or are a new lawyer, this ruling makes logical sense.  How can police search for a weapon, in an effort to protect themselves, when the suspect is not even near the car?  Now that I read the majority opinion, it's obvious again.

So, why would a lawyer be surprised and a layperson or beginner think that it all makes perfect sense?  

Consider zenmaster Shunryu Suzuki's words spoken first in a lecture and later in his phenomenal book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, "In beginner's mind we have many possibilities, but in expert mind there is not much possibility."  The sentiment may also be found in Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath, expressed as the problem of knowledge.  The problem with trying to communicate ideas when you are an expert is that you cannot imagine what it is like to not know something. James Surowiecki has found in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds,  that the problem of expertise actually limits the possibility of an elegant solution to a problem.  When you know about a subject you can think of fewer possibilities.  You know all the rules and assume all the assumptions.

Somewhere along the way, somebody saw Mr. Gant's arrest as something that made no logical sense and the law governing the search as wrong.  

The trick is not to unlearn everything you know.  The trick is to approach every case with a beginner's mind.  If you are a lawyer, think of all of the Arizona v. Gants that may be sitting in your filing cabinet.  If you are a client, then ask yourself whether your attorney, who hopefully is an expert, is looking at your situation with a beginner's mind.

Make your expertise your stock and trade but not your downfall.  

Who else has the beginner's mind in your case?  Your client.  Plan your case with your client.  Brainstorm the issues with her.  Read all of those letters written in the jail law library no matter how much they annoy you. 

Pick your best issues but keep your beginner's mind.

How to Hire and Work with a Georgia Appellate Lawyer (or Things Every Appellate Lawyer Should Do and Every Appellate Client Should Know)

The legal process is foreign and intimidating for the uninitiated and is especially so when the case ends at the trial level and the appellate process begins.  If you or a friend or family member has been convicted of a crime, you are faced with a difficult set of choices to make quickly at a time after something unthinkable has happened to you -- you have been locked up without a bond or, if not locked up, you have been labeled a criminal and are suffering consequences of that like a lost license or a lost job.  The appellate process encompasses everything that makes the legal system foreign and multiplies it times ten.  If you find yourself looking for appellate counsel, it is important to keep a couple of things in mind as you begin looking for a lawyer and a few expectations that you should have in an appellate lawyer.

The Lawyer Should Respond to your Call Quickly and be Available to Hear Your Story Quickly

While an appeal moves slowly in the long run, there are some key important deadlines that will approach as soon as your case ends at the trial level.  If you miss those deadlines, you could forever forfeit your right to appeal or may spend the critical early days of your appeal getting your case on track.  Competent appellate counsel may need to spend more time on your case just getting it on track, and your fee may be higher as a result.

The bottom line is that as soon as your case ends at the trial level, you should begin trying to find appellate counsel.  For a trial level case, your clock starts ticking the moment you are sentenced.  In a probation revocation, it begins when your probation is revoked.  For irregularities in plea and sentencing, the clock begins ticking when sentence is pronounced.

Competent appellate counsel is aware of how critical the first days after conviction are and should return your call or email quickly and have a significant enough conversation with you so that you each understand the situation even if he cannot meet you right away.  If you sense that prospective counsel is delaying too long in returning your initial inquiry, then you may wish to seek out other counsel (within one business day is a good rule of thumb).

The Lawyer Should Devote a Significant Portion of his Practice to Appellate Representation

Overall, the appellate process is more rule-driven and can be more technical than trial work.  It can be easy to default your appellate rights or make mistakes that can result in significant delay.  Furthermore, as much as the process appears to be driven by the black and white law, there are personalities.  Just as it was important for your trial lawyer to know the personalities of the people you encountered (from the judge, to the jury, to the clerk, to the deputy at the metal detector at the door), appellate counsel should be acquainted with some of the personalities in the court where your case will go.  That is not to say that he should claim to be friends with the judge or justice (in fact, you should perhaps run away from lawyers who make boasts such as that), your prospective lawyer should practice enough in the relevant court to have a professional relationship and understand some of the procedures, both written and unwritten, in the appellate court clerk's office.  Your lawyer should know your panel -- your legal "jury" -- in terms of their judicial philosophy, leanings, and temperament. 

Your lawyer should know how to select issues, write an appellate brief, and communicate with the court at oral argument.  Also, since the beginning of some appeals will involve a hearing at the trial court level where he will question witnesses, he must also know how to question friendly and hostile witnesses.

That is to say that it is not necessary that the lawyer devote his practice entirely to appellate cases (sometimes you may benefit from his expertise as trial counsel as well).  However, appellate practice should comprise a significant portion of what he does.  It is important to find out how much experience he has in appellate practice and to get an understanding of his experience in the legal community.

There are some key ways to assess experience

• The number of reported cases where he has been counsel of record (reported cases are cases that are published and stand as precedent for one or more points of law)
• How many years has he worked in the appellate courts?
• What are his most significant cases to date?
• What percentage of his practice would he say is devoted to appellate representation?
• Who are some other attorneys in the community who could speak to his experience as an appellate attorney?
• What professional organizations is he involved in?

He Should Be Able to Make You Feel More at Ease and Help you Grasp the Processes and the Difference Between the Appeal and the Trial

If you or a loved one has been convicted of a crime, it is natural to feel a range of emotions, including fear, anger, sadness, loneliness, and despair.  You may feel betrayed by a witnesses who brought evidence against you or the process in general.  You may feel like you would like to punish the prosecutor who brought the case, the officer who testified, and the judge for the way you feel that he handled your case and treated you.

Unfortunately, the appellate process exists to correct legal error and can sometime be a dissatisfying forum for what you feel like you and your case needs. 

Appellate counsel should listen to all of your concerns and should help shift your focus from the trial to the appeal.  The appellate courts will generally not second guess the jury or the trial judge's determination of whether a witness told the truth.  All of the facts will be viewed as if the State's witnesses told the truth, and appellate counsel will be largely stuck with the record as recorded in the pages of the record. 

Appellate counsel must understand where you are and what your concerns are, but he must also help you grasp some of the fundamental differences between trial and appeal, and he should prepare you for the fact that the winning issues on appeal may be technical and abstract.

You should leave the first consultation with appellate counsel feeling like you have been heard but with a general understanding of some of the distinctions and with a big-picture view of what will happen.

He Should Have an Honest Conversation with you about Whether You Should Appeal and What the Odds in General Are and Why he May Not Know Your Odds in Particular

An overwhelming number of appeals are unsuccessful, particularly in the criminal arena.  Your lawyer should never promise a result and should always enter into discussions with you with an honest appraisal of just how difficult it can be in many cases.  The lawyer should work with you to help you determine whether an appeal is a good idea in general.  You should feel like you are getting advice not that you are being sold something.

Prospective appellate counsel should also explain that he may not know what the issues are and will not know the strength of your case until the transcript comes in.  He may be able to figure these things out generally through a discussion with the client, with trial counsel, by a review of the record available at the time, and perhaps in discussion with the prosecutor.  If trial counsel is promising you something or being overly-optimistic, then you should evaluation whether he has your best interests at heart.

That is not to say that some case (and maybe most) must be appealed simply because the sentence or other consequences is worth even a slight chance of success. 

Conclusion

Half of an attorney's job is to do everything he can to get you the best possible result.  The other half is making sure that you are as comfortable as possible with an attorney-client relationship that is open and honest.  Use the first steps of the hiring process to gauge how good a fit you and prospective counsel will be in each area.

How to Prepare Yourself and Your Teen for Investigation in a Georgia School or by Georgia Law Enforcement

You should read this post even if your child has never made less than an A, is the president of his church youth group and is on the verge of selling more cookies than any other girl scout or is about to become an eagle scout.

Schools uniformly have zero-tolerance policies, and police officers seem to exercise discretion more poorly than ever before.  So, even great kids find themselves under investigation for things, and it is important that your children be armed with some information about their rights and about the possible consequences to "romantic" teenage behavior.

1.    There is almost never a duty to talk, but an assortment of bad things can happen when you do.

Just about every Georgia school district has a staff of school resource officers.  These guys are agents of law enforcement, and there are various constitutional restrictions on what they can do.  Generally they cannot search your child, his locker, or his car without probable cause and cannot hold your child in custody and questioning him without advising him of his rights.  School personnel are a different matter.  They operate as parents while they have your child at school.  They can search pretty easily.  They can hold your child and question him without informing you first.  School resource officers know to back away and let the school staff do the investigation because they can get away with more. 

Bottom line.  Talk to your child about what to do if she is questioned about a criminal or serious disciplinary matter.  Teach him to say "I can't talk until I speak with my mom or dad."  When in doubt, say that and hold firm to "i'm not going to talk to you unless mom and dad are here."  If you get a call after your child does this, then get a lawyer and do not let anyone speak to a child until you speak with a lawyer.

More damage is done to potential cases of young people because of school interrogation than anything else.

2.    Do not Supervise Young Children (Particularly of the Opposite Sex) Without an Adult Present at All Times

If you have a teenage boy, I would suggest that babysitting is not the job for him.  If your teenager is a leader in a youth group where he or she is supervising much younger (4 or more years of age difference) children, then the teen should assume that role only as an assistant to an adult who will be present the entire time. 

The reasons should be obvious.

3.    Do Not Consent to Anything

Tell your child not to consent to a search ever.  Even if your child is completely certain that there is nothing to be found.  If they are asking for consent it means that they probably couldn't do what they are asking to do without consent.  If you're innocent, you have nothing to prove.  If you're guilty, don't think that the police will think you are innocent because you consented.  That bluff always gets called.  It will get called here, too.

Even if you think they are going to search anyway, don't consent.  What they find may not be admissible, and if it would be admissible anyway, then your consent or lack of consent will be irrelevant, so don't consent.

Shift in the Law on School Searches

In Safford v. Redding, which can be found here, the United States Supreme Court found that the strip search of a thirteen-year-old girl by a principal in a public school violated her Fourth Amendment rights.  The opinion increases the level of scrutiny for school officials when the level of the intrusion of the search increases.  Under T.L.O., the level of scrutiny required was reasonable suspicion that the student has contraband on her person.  In this case, a fellow student was caught with over the counter and mild prescription pain pills.  She claimed that Redding gave her the pills.  Redding's bookbag and outer clothing was searched, and nothing was found.  She was then forced to strip to her underwear and bra and required to shake out her undergarments and remove the elastic strap of her bra. 

The 8-1 majority (Justice Thomas reasoned that students check their Fourth Amendment rights at the school door) held that, because the suspected contraband posed no or minimal danger to other students, and the principal's level of suspicion that the student was hiding advil and its equivalent in her undergarments was not sufficient to requre such an intrusive and humiliating search, his actions violated the student's rights under the Fourth Amendment. The student who claimed that Redding gave her pills did not say when Redding gave her the pills or whether she gave the pills to her at school.

Since no pills were actually found, the Court did not speak on how its opinion would relate to the exclusionary rule (whether, had contraband been found, it could have been used against the student in court).  The Court stopped short of saying that the principal could be sued for a civil rights violation -- though the dissent would have extended a private cause of action Redding.

This case will require a significant shift in Georgia law, which is laughable in this area.  School officials have, for too long, been given a blank check when it comes to the Fourth Amendment rights of students.  In Georgia v. K.L.M, 278 Ga. App. 219 (2006), the Georgia Court of Appeals held that the exclusionary rule dos not apply to searches by school officials and that their conduct is not improper unless the student is "whimsically stripped of personal privacy and subjected to petty tyranny."  Perhaps the United States Supreme Court is now taking that blank check away.

Consider what it has taken for a school search by a school official to be considered violative of the Fourth Amendment before now:

The administrator must be:

1.    Whimsical;

2.    engaged in stripping the student of personal privacy;

3.    petty; and

4.    tyrannical

Even then, the exclusionary rule has not applied in Georgia.  It is hard to imagine a search that would not have passed muster under Georgia law before this recent United States Supreme Court opinion.

Another interesting part of this case is that Justice Ginsburg seems to believe the fourth amendment implications of strip-searching a girl are more significant than strip-searching a boy due to body image and similar issues. 

The Supreme Court Overturns Significant Purpose of Georgia's RICO Statute

I was proud to be a part of this effort as the author of the amicus brief filed by the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (GACDL.) 

If there were ever a statute that deserved to be struck, it was this one.  In the case, police seized the appellant's home, his business, his bank accounts, the money in his wallet, the watch from his wrist, and appointed a "receiver" to administer his property.  The receiver hit his property to the tune of about half a million dollars.

He was never arrested or charged with a crime, but he was compelled to give up his fifth amendment rights or have his silence be construed as an admission for purposes of salvaging all that he owned.

The Supreme Court of Georgia extended to him and to those similarly situation all the rights afforded to the accused in a criminal matter and found that the in personam provisions of Georgia's RICO statute are unconstitutional.

Check out some of the coverage here.  The opinion is here.

Lawyering Up

That old adage about "he who represents himself has a fool for a client," is true.  A month ago, I got a speeding ticket and had to be in court a couple of weeks ago.  The citation sat on my desk.  I called the solicitor and worked it out.  The citation sat on my desk and sat some more.  I have never missed a court date on a client matter, but I never calendared my court date because, after all, it was my court date.

So, I woke up one morning, put on some jeans, and was running errands when my secretary called me to let me know that the judge's office called, and that I had missed court on my own matter.  It all worked out, but it was a frantic couple of hours until it did.

I had a fool for a client.

Now, let me imagine that the matter were more serious and I were under investigation for a felony of some sort.  How would I respond if the police wanted to talk to "clear some things up"?  Might I, with all I know about how it all works, come down for an interrogation?

The one thing a lawyer brings to the table that is as valuable as skill and knowledge is distance.  It is as distinct  being a chess player versus being one of the chess pieces.

What should you do, then, if the police want to talk to you?  If you refuse to talk, do you seem more suspicious? Does a matter that would have worked itself out become more serious because now you appear guiltier than before?  If you talk, do you appear guiltier because you look like you are not telling the truth completely or with 100% accurately?  You could escape criminal liability on the underlying offense and get in trouble for the accuracy of what you say in the interview.  Ask Martha Stewart if you don't believe me.

First and foremost, ask for a lawyer.  Really ask for a lawyer.  Don't say, "maybe I should get a lawyer."  Don't ask the investigator if he thinks you should.  Say, "I want a lawyer."  Say, "I want to speak to a lawyer, and I can't talk to you until I speak to a lawyer."

Even if you are very smart, even if you are a lawyer, you should ask for a lawyer, because what you say is etched in stone, and you are not objective or distant enough from what is going on around you to do othwise.

When you get that lawyer, tell him the complete truth, and make sure that nobody but you and the lawyer are there when you have that conversation -- even if the person you want to be there with you is paying the fee.

Sometimes, I would think rarely, your lawyer may want you to talk to the police.  Often, he may want to provide information to them himself.  Most often, he will say nothing and advise you to say nothing. His decision will come from a clearer mind than yours would.

So, if that day comes for you, be nice.  Be polite.  But say that you want a lawyer.  No matter what they say in response to that, be a broken record.  Say it over and over.

You are not objective enough in that situation to say anything else.