You have the right to remain silent.  Many feel that this is so that they don’t incriminate themselves when talking to law enforcement after a crime may have been committed, which is accurate.  However, I feel that, even when innocent, you should remain silent.  This article is designed to show you why.  If you are charged with a crime and need a zealous criminal defense team, please contact us to help ensure your freedom.

When you meet an overzealous police officer and prosecutor, their actions may feel like they’re looking for a conviction, not looking for the “truth” or solving the crime justly.  I don’t believe this to be intentional; however, there are pressures on solving these terrible crimes, and they are human and make assumptions.  But like many of the assumptions we make, we may be wrong.  However, when our assumptions are wrong, it doesn’t ruin someone’s life.  Prosecutors may do just that if they’re not doing their due diligence.

Even when innocent, your right to remain silent is important, and you should use it

Let’s look at just a few high profile examples:

Richard Jewell. 

Richard Jewell, whose name was thrust back into the spotlight after the 2019 movie, Richard Jewell, saved the lives of people during a bombing at the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park.  While working as a security guard for AT&T, he discovered a backpack that contained three pipe bombs.  Jewell alerted police and helped evacuate the area before the bomb exploded, saving many people from injury or death.  Jewell was initially hailed as a hero but later became a suspect, before ultimately being cleared when Eric Rudolph was found to be the bomber.  Despite never being charged, Jewell underwent a “jury by media,” which took a toll on his and his mother’s personal and professional life, resulting in his premature death at 44 years old.

The Central Park Five.

This is the criminal case based on the assault and rape of a 28-year-old woman.  As chronicled in the Netflix mini-series, When They See Us, five children between the ages of 14-16 were wrongfully convicted and then incarcerated for 5-10 years.  All five confessed to the crime after being interrogated for hours without lawyers, and according to them, deprived of food and sleep. They were convicted despite giving accounts that were inconsistent with each other and with the crime scene, and there was no supporting DNA evidence.  They were convicted based on false, coerced confessions, which we know now because someone else came forward and confessed to the crime.

Nga Trong.

In 2008, 16-year-old Nga Truong confessed to killing her 13-month old infant in Massachusetts. The American-Vietnamese teenager had phoned emergency services after her baby had stopped breathing, and one-and-a-half hours later, a doctor pronounced him dead.  The officer who questioned Truong in a confined room made accusatory statements, lied about the evidence and offered false promises.

In a video of the confession, obtained by American public radio station WBUR, the police said that Truong would be given a more lenient punishment if she confessed and that she and her brothers could be put into a better living situation. At the time, she lived in an apartment with her boyfriend, mother, and siblings.  The police also referenced an incident when Truong was eight years old and her mother had left her to look after her baby brother, who died from sudden infant death syndrome under her watch.  A judge watched the tape and ruled that the confession was coerced and Truong was released – after almost three years in jail.

Henry McCollum and Leon Brown.

Henry McCollum and his half-brother, Leon Brown, were convicted in 1984 for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in North Carolina after both teenagers confessed to the crime. They were 19 and 15 at the time, and both had intellectual disabilities. Both soon recanted, saying they were coerced, but to no avail. Brown was eventually sentenced to life in prison, while McCollum spent 30 years on death row. They were exonerated on DNA evidence in 2014 and later given pardons of innocence.

Why would people admit to committing a heinous crime?  

Of all the convicted people who have been exonerated by DNA testing, almost 30 percent confessed to crimes they didn’t commit, according to the nonprofit legal rights group, The Innocence Project.   Saul Kassin, Ph.D., considered to be a false confession expert, found that vulnerable suspects, including teenagers, people with intellectual impairments, and those with mental illness, are more likely to make false confessions, especially if they are under pressure from interrogators. Police are permitted to lie about evidence and imply promises and threats through subtle but lawful tactics.[1]

Many police and prosecutors are in their line of work for the right reasons, but there are some that look only to “win” a case. You have the right to remain silent, and whether you are guilty or innocent; you should take full advantage of this right.

*This article is written by Sean Kelsey, Chief Operating Officer, a non-attorney with Nave Law Firm.  No information should be construed as legal information and is the opinion of Sean Kelsey if you have questions please contact


[1] A bill, S6806,l is currently being considered by the New York State Senate on whether police officers can continue to use these deceptive practices to obtain confessions.


related articles

Bill Cosby Released From Prison: But Why?

Bill Cosby has been released from prison. He walks among us again as a free man.


No, it’s not because he already served his sentence. It’s not because he was granted parole from his conviction, either. Nor did Pennsylvania’s Governor grant a pardon or issue clemency. Instead, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Cosby’s conviction on appeal.


Cosby had reached an agreement with a former prosecutor, Bruce Castor, under which Cosby was not to be criminally charged for the incident which eventually resulted in his 2018 conviction. Castor has gained more recent notoriety as being a member of former President Donald Trump’s legal team during his second impeachment trial. In short, though, Castor, while chief prosecutor for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, had reached a deal with Cosby under which Castor agreed to grant Cosby immunity from all prosecution related to the incident if Cosby agreed to testify at a civil trial initiated by his accuser, which was to take place in 2005.


That accuser was Andrea Constand. Constand accused Cosby of drugging and molesting her at his estate in 2004. At the time, Constand was a Temple University employee, a former professional basketball player who had risen to be the head of basketball operations at the university. Castor chose to grant Cosby immunity from prosecution because he felt prosecutors would have difficulty confirming the forensic evidence from the case, without Cosby’s prior admission to the crimes, at trial.


Instead, by granting Cosby immunity from prosecution, Castor sought to force Cosby’s hand into testifying at Constand’s civil trial against him. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote in its decision, “Seeking ‘some measure of justice’ for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand, thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” Cosby relied on this immunity while testifying at Constand’s civil trial. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted, he “proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements.”


Yet, years later, a new prosecutor was elected in Montgomery County. Feeling unbound by his predecessor’s immunity agreement with Cosby, new District Attorney Kevin Steele brought charges against Cosby related to the 2004 incident with Constand.


At trial on those charges, Steele and his office used Cosby’s incriminating testimony at Constand’s 2005 civil trial against him. In fact, his testimony became a cornerstone of the People’s case. Ultimately, Cosby was convicted on three counts of aggravated indecent assault in April 2018. He was sentenced to a term of three to ten years in prison.


On appeal, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found an issue with the revocation of Cosby’s immunity agreement simply because a new prosecutor had taken office. As the Court wrote, “When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly, and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that circumstance of its inequity…A contrary result would be patently untenable. It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we strive to maintain.”


The Court concluded, then, that “For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged.”


Cosby was released from prison yesterday, shortly after the Court’s decision was announced. A spokesman for Cosby told reporters, upon his release, that “This is what we have been fighting for and this is justice and justice for Black America.” Sentiments were not shared by those in the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office. Mr. Steele, in a statement released Wednesday, noted “Cosby was found guilty by a jury and now goes free on a procedural issue that is irrelevant to the facts of the crime…My hope is that this decision will not dampen the reporting of sexual assaults by victims. Prosecutors in my office will continue to follow the evidence wherever and to whomever it leads. We still believe that no one is above the law – including those who are rich, famous, and powerful.”


Prosecutors could still, should they so choose, seek to appeal the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. Such an appeal would be to the U.S. Supreme Court, and would likely highlight the issue of due process and argue that retrial of Cosby could be granted should the prosecution refrain from including his 2005 civil trial testimony. The U.S. Supreme Court may elect against hearing the case, however, given its highly publicized nature and its near singular focus on procedural matters.


Yesterday’s decision also gave hope to others entangled in the #MeToo movement’s eye-opening allegations of misconduct against prominent men. Harvey Weinstein’s legal team issued a statement following the release of the Court’s decision, highlighting the Court’s ability to follow the facts and the law under the pressure of a case that garnered much media attention. In sum, the Weinstein legal team noted, “This decision also reaffirms our confidence that the Appellate Division in New York will reach the similarly correct decision in Harvey Weinstein’s appeal, considering the abundance of issues that cry out for a reversal.” Weinstein had previously been sentenced to serve 23 years on rape and sexual assault charges.


The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision overturning Cosby’s conviction can be read here:

Read More

Nave Law wins suit against City of Albany to protect Reverend’s civil rights.


As part of Nave Law Firm’s efforts to give back to the communities we practice in, our own Derek Andrews took action after reading a Times Union article about a local woman’s plight against a local government who stonewalled her efforts to obtain body camera recordings of an incident that involved her.


In 2019, uniformed members of the Albany Police Department wearing body cameras forcibly removed Reverend Cheryl Hawkins, a street-reach minister in the New York Capital District, from a public park as she preached and sang Christian hymns, for which she had received a special event permit from the City of Albany. That removal violated her constitutionally-guaranteed rights to free expression. As part of a lawsuit, her civil rights attorney requested those body camera recordings from the city through New York’s Freedom of Information Law but was rebuffed, having been told that they were protected and confidential because of Civil Rights Law Section 50-a.


Mr. Andrews helped both Ms. Hawkins and her civil rights attorney by filing an Article 78 special proceeding, a type of lawsuit, against the City of Albany and the Albany Police Department, claiming that they violated Ms. Hawkins’ right to free access to body camera recordings of that incident.


Although the city produced those recordings before the conclusion of the lawsuit, Judge David Weinstein of the Albany County Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Andrews’ arguments when he issued a decision at the end of 2020 stating that Ms. Hawkins had substantially prevailed and that the city was unreasonable in originally denying her access. That last part meant that the city Times Union Article, which resulted in a five-figure settlement. Ms. Hawkins will now continue her lawsuit against Albany for violating her civil rights.


When asked for comment by Reverand Hawkins, she responded:

“Mr. Andrews saw the Times-Union Newspaper Front Page Huge Article (February 17, 2020). He then contacted my attorney and wanted to see how he could help.  He felt that I was facing an injustice.  I was already paying another lawyer big money to represent me, and I could not afford a second law firm.  Derek then spoke with the leadership team with Nave Law Firm, and the team decided to take the case at no cost to me.  

I was so grateful that he believed in me enough to advocate for me and cared enough to help me at no cost.

The best part is that he WON THE CASE; he even won the city’s and the cop’s appeal filed in Albany County after winning the case.”


Nave Law Firm is grateful for the opportunity to have assisted Ms. Hawkins in her pursuit of justice.



Read More

Decriminalizing Possession of Hard Drugs

Oregon seems to be leading the way in the war . . . on the war on drugs while New York falls further behind. In a more sizable margin than either Biden or Trump would secure in this election, nearly 59% of citizens in Oregon voted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Their decision also supported greater access to treatment for those who need it, which is paid for by the tax proceeds from marijuana sales. New York took a step in the right direction when they decriminalized possession of marijuana last year, but they remain several steps behind a large swath of the country that has legalized marijuana possession outright, including our next-door neighbors. While legislators and Governor Cuomo are interested in legalization, it’s unlikely to happen in the next year or two. Here’s why the legalization of marijuana, and other drugs, is worthwhile: not only would it ameliorate years of disproportionate effects of criminal drug possession on communities of color but it would give those with addictions greater access to higher-quality treatment. It also wouldn’t hurt to make some money by taxing those “products,” which could prove to be cleaner and safer than those cut with harmful and toxic chemicals. By the way, we certainly don’t mean to imply that it should be legal to drive while impaired by a drug, whether it’s legal or illegal. Please don’t do that.

We’re only suggesting that the war on drugs was misguided and that Oregon, and other states who are following suit, are headed in the right direction. Let’s convince New York to do the same.

Read More