YOU have the right to remain silent in a police interview – but a jury is more likely to think you are guilty if you do, according to new research by psychologists.

Anyone who has ever watched a TV police show has probably seen suspects being read their rights, reminding them they do not have to say anything unless they want to.

But forensic psychologists suggests that keeping mum could come back to haunt them if the case goes to trial, because it raises the suspicions of a jury.

Researchers from Glasgow Caledonian University created a scenario involving written interviews with four suspects denying attempting to murder a man in a bar.

The content ranged from a suspect who simply said ‘no comment’ to each question, to one who gave short, sharp answers, while others were more forthcoming in their denial.

The researchers presented the written accounts to 34 volunteers who were asked to rate each for ‘believability’ and then say if they thought the suspect guilty or not.

The results which will be presented at the Forensic Psychology Annual Conference in Belfast showed the men who said nothing or very little were perceived to be guilty.

Those who fully answered the questions were seen to be believable – whether or not their stories were actually true – and more likely to be found not guilty.

A spokesperson for Glasgow Caledonian University, said:

… Given the instruction that defendants have the right to remain silent, it is important to understand jurors’ perceptions of a suspect’s believability based on whether they choose to comply with police during their interview.

… Compliant suspects were generally perceived to be more believable and found not guilty whereas the opposite was the case for those who refused to cooperate. This research has provided insight into how a suspect’s chosen behaviours in a police interview can influence how they are perceived in court.