Usually, no. The Golden Rule of Defense1 is that suspects who think that they may be implicated2（牵连） in a crime should keep their mouths tightly shut. Suspects all too frequently unwittingly reveal information that later can be used as evidence of guilt3. The right to not incriminate oneself guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment4 to the U.S. Constitution is especially powerful in this situation, and a suspect should politely decline to answer questions, at least until consulting with an attorney.
12. A Police Officer Wants to Ask me about a Crime That a Friend or Relative of Mine Committed. What Do I Risk by Providing False Information?
A lot. When an inpidual lies to the police or otherwise intentionally5 assists a known criminal to avoid arrest, he or she may be charged as an accessory after the fact（事后从犯）. Obviously, the decision as to whether to furnish information leading to the arrest of a relative or close friend is a personal one. However, a person who chooses not to do so should simply decline to answer an officer's questions rather than lie. Rarely, if ever, would an inpidual who simply declines to give information to a police officer qualify as an accessory after the fact.
Case Example: Cain comes running into his brother Abel's house, and tells Abel that he, Cain, just robbed a market and that the police might be on his tail. A few minutes later, a police officer knocks on Abel's door and asks him if Cain is in the house. Abel responds, No, he left town permanently6 to go back east weeks ago.
Question: Is Abel subject to criminal prosecution7?
本节题目：
1、Rarely, if ever, would an inpidual who simply declines to give information to a police officer qualify as an accessory after the fact.
2、Question: Is Abel subject to criminal prosecution?
答案：
1、一个人只不过拒绝为警官提供情报，不构成事后从犯，即便存在也非常罕见。
2、YES
