Virtually anything you say to the police can be used against you in court. Most people, whether innocent or guilty, will say something during police interrogation that they will regret later. Even if you don't actually say anything to regret, it will probably be the police officer's account of what you said, not yours, that the court will believe. The officer may also tell the court, in effect, that your demeanor during the interrogation was not what he would have expected if you were telling the truth-- and you'll have no way to prove otherwise. If I have information that shows
I'm innocent, I have to tell the police about it, don't I? No. Your lawyer can provide information to the police for you. It is very hard for the police or prosecutor to use communications from your lawyer against you. If I refuse to talk to the police,
won't it appear I'm guilty? So won't I probably get charged? Refusing interrogation without a lawyer doesn't show guilt; it shows good judgment. Most of the police officers who conduct interrogation would consult with a lawyer before undergoing it themselves.

Most prosecutors make charging decisions according to the strength of their evidence. If you answer questions, you give them evidence. Refusing interrogation cannot strengthen their evidence, even if it strengthens their hunches. For that reason, refusing probably won't make it more likely you'll be charged with a crime. What will happen when I ask to speak to
a lawyer before I answer questions for the police? Most likely, the police will simply end the questioning. They will not likely put you in touch with a lawyer, because they know the lawyer will probably advise you not to speak to them. And if they are willing to end the questioning, they probably aren't required to provide you a lawyer right away.

A few police officers will continue to question a suspect even after he has asked to speak to a lawyer first. They do this because the answers can be admissible in court under some circumstances. If you're put in this situation, your best course is probably to repeat, as often as necessary, that you decline to answer any questions until you speak to a lawyer.

Although the law forbids it, there are some officers who will hint that if you don't answer their questions without a lawyer, you will go to jail immediately. They do have the power to put you there, at least overnight. If the police threaten you this way, gather your courage and continue to insist on a lawyer. Protecting your rights in a child abuse investigation is worth much more than avoiding a short stay in jail. The police want me to take a lie-detector test.
Since it's not admissible in court, I have nothing to lose, right? Wrong. Police use lie-detector (polygraph) examinations to get people to confess. When a person fails one, the shock of failing often induces him to confess immediately. Many polygraph examiners are trained to press for a confession when a suspect fails the exam. The exams are not perfect, so even an innocent person can fail and find himself in a terrible spot.

If you want to take a polygraph exam to demonstrate your innocence, that can be done privately, without telling the police until you know you've passed. A lawyer can set that up for you. Don't count on your passing a polygraph exam to stop the police or the prosecutor, though. If there's no evidence, an
accusation has to fail in court, doesn't it? Testimony is evidence. If someone-- even a child-- says you committed a crime, a jury would probably be entitled to believe it and convict you.

In child sex abuse cases, medical evidence is rare.Molestation often leaves no trace, especially if weeks or months pass before a doctor looks. So a lack of medical evidence does not stop an investigation or prosecution. I'm eligible for a public defender.
Is there any reason to hire a private lawyer instead? Many of the most dedicated and capable lawyers in America are public defenders. Yet many people who have been represented by public defenders are dissatisfied.

In most public defense offices, the lawyers have too many cases. That means they cannot give much time to each case. A private lawyer may be able to investigate and prepare your case much more thoroughly.

Also, when you hire a private lawyer, you choose your lawyer. When a public defender represents you, someone else usually chooses him or her. You might be assigned a first-rate lawyer-- and you might not.

If you decide to hire a private lawyer, choose one carefully. Many private lawyers don't have the right experience to do a good job in a child abuse defense, and some do not devote adequate time to their cases. How much would it cost for a private
lawyer to represent me? When would I have to pay? Private lawyers charge for their work according to many different systems. The most common are hourly fees, in which the client pays according to how much time the lawyer spends, and "flat fees," in which the client pays a pre-determined amount for the lawyer's handling a case or a particular phase of a case.

Many criminal defense lawyers require payment in advance. Also, many have a non-refundable minimum charge. Where can I find a good lawyer to help me? If you already know a good lawyer who doesn't handle this kind of case, you can ask her or him to recommend a lawyer who does.

The National Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center in Holland, Ohio, telephone (419) 865-0513, keeps track of lawyers around the United States who focus on defending persons accused of child abuse.

You might have someone ask an experienced prosecutor in your city to identify the best local defense lawyers. Because they oppose defense lawyers every day, prosecutors are in a good position to judge them. (If you are a suspect yourself, don't make this call personally! This would be almost as dangerous as calling the police to discuss your case.)

Of course, you can hire a lawyer from another city or state. Because the lawyer will have to spend some time and money traveling, this will probably cost more than hiring a local lawyer. If things don't go well at
trial, I can appeal and start over, right? Wrong. A trial court-- either a jury or a judge acting without a jury-- hears testimony and looks at other evidence. Then the court decides which testimony and other evidence is the most believable, and it decides the case accordingly.

Courts of appeal don't receive evidence. (They usually don't even have witness stands in their courtrooms.) Courts of appeal generally just decide whether the trial judge ran the trial according to law. They generally don't consider whether the side that won the trial was the one that should have won.

Trial is the best opportunity to win a case. Don't wait until after trial to give your case your best effort.