The Most Dangerous Words in Criminal Defense

Why Good Police Officers Can Still Reach the Wrong Conclusion

When someone is arrested, it's common to hear, "The police already know what happened." But as a criminal defense attorney in Redding, I can tell you that those may be the most dangerous words spoken in a criminal case.

The vast majority of police officers are hardworking, honest professionals who genuinely want to solve crimes and protect the public. The problem isn't usually bad faith. The problem is something all human beings share: once we believe we've found the answer, it's remarkably difficult to keep an open mind.

Psychologists call this confirmation bias. Once we form a conclusion, we naturally begin noticing evidence that supports it while unintentionally giving less attention to facts that point in another direction. It isn't dishonesty—it is simply how the human brain works.

Imagine putting together a thousand-piece puzzle. If someone tells you the finished picture is a lighthouse, every blue piece suddenly looks like ocean and every gray piece looks like rocks. But if the puzzle was actually a mountain landscape, those same pieces tell an entirely different story. The pieces haven't changed—only your assumption has.

Criminal investigations can work the same way.

Once investigators decide who committed a crime, every interview, every text message, every witness statement, and every piece of physical evidence may begin to be interpreted through that lens. Witnesses who support the theory seem credible. Witnesses who contradict it become confused, mistaken, or unreliable. Innocent explanations may never receive the same level of investigation.

This does not mean the police acted improperly. In fact, many investigations are conducted professionally and thoroughly. But even excellent investigators are human, and human beings naturally seek patterns that confirm what they already believe.

That is precisely why our legal system has defense attorneys, judges, juries, rules of evidence, and the constitutional right to cross-examine witnesses. The criminal justice system was never designed to simply accept the first explanation offered. It was designed to test it.

As a Redding criminal defense attorney, I don't begin by asking, "How can I explain my client's conduct?" I begin by asking a different question:

"What assumptions is everyone making?"

Sometimes those assumptions are correct. Sometimes they are not.

A witness who "positively identifies" someone may have viewed the suspect for only a few seconds in poor lighting. A confession may have followed hours of questioning. DNA may establish contact but not criminal intent. A suspicious text message may make perfect sense once the surrounding conversation is examined. Context matters.

History is filled with wrongful convictions that did not occur because investigators were evil or because jurors were careless. Many occurred because everyone involved became convinced they already knew what happened before every piece of evidence had been fairly examined.

That's why I approach every case with healthy skepticism—not skepticism of people, but skepticism of conclusions that haven't been thoroughly tested.

One of my favorite verses captures this idea perfectly:

"The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
— Proverbs 18:17

That verse isn't just ancient wisdom; it describes the very purpose of a criminal trial. The first story often sounds convincing. The real test comes when someone asks the difficult questions.

If you're facing criminal charges in Shasta County or anywhere in Northern California, you deserve more than someone who assumes the government's version of events is correct. You deserve an attorney willing to challenge assumptions, examine every piece of evidence, and ask the questions that no one else has asked.

Because in criminal defense, justice is rarely found by accepting the first story.

It's found by examining it.