A natural reaction when a person is questioned in connection with a crime is often simple: “I have done nothing wrong, so I will explain everything.”
This is precisely where problems can begin.
Being innocent does not mean that speaking to investigators is always safe. A criminal case is determined not simply by what actually happened, but by what can be established through the evidence properly admitted and available in the case.
A person may answer questions entirely honestly, yet be mistaken about the time, fail to remember a particular detail, recall an additional fact later, or describe the same event somewhat differently on another occasion. Such inconsistencies may subsequently be used to challenge the credibility of that person's account.
The risk does not necessarily arise from a direct confession. For example, by saying, “I was there, but I did not take part in the fight,” a person denies committing an offence while simultaneously confirming their presence at the scene. That fact may become significant evidence for the investigation and, in certain circumstances, a person's own statement may even provide grounds for an allegation of failure to report a crime.
This is precisely why the right to remain silent exists.
Under Article 38 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, an accused person has the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions at any stage. The law also expressly provides that exercising the right to silence cannot be treated as evidence of guilt.
Silence, therefore, is not an admission of guilt.
It is the right of a person not to create evidence against themselves through their own words.
This does not mean that an accused person should always remain silent. In a particular case, giving evidence may be important to the defence. However, the decision whether to speak or remain silent, particularly at the earliest stage of an investigation, should not be made emotionally or without consulting a lawyer.
A person may know with absolute certainty that they are innocent, while having no knowledge of what information investigators already possess, what legal significance a particular answer may have, or how their words may subsequently be used.
An innocent person may have nothing to hide, but that does not mean they have nothing to protect.
