Accessory After The Fact?

Great Debates
1

This may turn out to be a General Question — and, if so, apologies in advance — but I figured the odds were pretty good that it’s a matter for debate and would wind up here.

So: let’s say that, in best mystery-novel fashion, I wish that my rich uncle were dead. And let’s say this becomes known, since I shout “I wish you were dead” at him during an argument in front of witnesses at a restaurant one Friday evening — and those witnesses then keep paying attention when he asks how I’d feel if he cut me out of the will. And I go pale and stammer something and stomp off.

Sunday, I’m visited by cops: they inform me that, on Saturday, my uncle (a) phoned his attorney to set an appointment for first thing Monday morning; also on Saturday, he (b) apparently got killed by someone at his home at some time between six and nine that evening. They ask if I, as the hotheaded loudmouth who stands to inherit everything and publicly wished him dead, can tell them where I was at that time; I refuse to answer. They have other evidence that would be hard to explain away, and is enough to get me arrested; I don’t try to explain it away; they arrest me.

Time passes as the case goes to trial; at the last possible moment, I produce ironclad evidence that I was somewhere else, per security-camera footage or whatever, at the time he was killed. I’m of course not found guilty; I am, though, asked why I waited so long to mention this.

The truth is: while I have no idea who killed my uncle, I gratefully approve, and I figured the least I could do was let the trail go cold while the authorities busily failed to build a case against me; if I’d cleared my name on Day One, the killer might not have gotten away with it!

So, first: have I, in that scenario, committed a crime?

And, if so: what happens if I just don’t actually say that last part?

2

This is one of those things that depends on where you live.

In the UK, for example it seems (IANAL) that this may apply:

Effect of accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged.

(1)Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused—

(a)at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or

(b)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact,

[F1; or

(c)at any time after being charged with the offence, on being questioned under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (post-charge questioning), failed to mention any such fact,]

being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (2) below applies.

(2)Where this subsection applies—

F2( a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F3(b)a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under[F4 paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998]

(c)the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;

and

(d)the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,
**> **
> may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.

In other words, not providing an alibi that you knew you had and which you actually use at the trial, when asked on that subject is (in the UK) something that the judge or jury is allowed to say “What’s all this, then” about, and perhaps consider you guilty of something.

For the US, I don’t know

3

Title 18 of the U.S. Code deals with crimes and criminal procedure. Accessory-after-the-fact has been codified in 18 U.S. Code § 3.

An accessory-after-the-fact is someone who assists 1) someone who has committed a crime, 2) after the person has committed the crime, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the crime, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, among other things, obstruction of justice.

According to that definition, the OP would not be found guilty because of #3, not knowing the person who committed the crime.

Whether it’s obstruction of justice because of the other actions is not answered there.

4

In the U.S, an alibi defense is something a defendant must assert before trial. Not a crime, but you may be prohibited from offering the evidence at trial.

Failure to come forward is not enough to be an accessory after the fact, especially when you have the right to remain silent as a defendant

5

Much obliged; but I guess that still brings me back to my underlying question: I said “at the last possible moment”, so figure I wait as long as I can to bring it up before trial. So I can’t delay it as long as I’d like, but I miss it as close as possible when doing what I can to tight-lippedly make things hard for the authorities for a real good while.

And maybe I even say so, when cheerfully explaining that to anyone who’ll listen.

What, if anything, follows?

6

I would guess that what follows your saying publicly that you are preventing the authorities from finding the true killer is your need for a good lawyer. As we’re seeing in real time, the government will pour through your entire life to find something to charge you with and make your life miserable and expensive even if they know they couldn’t convict you.

7

As already noted, if you are accused of a crime then you have the right to remain silent, and you don’t have to lift a finger to help with the investigation.

What would get you into trouble would be if you tried to influence other people’s cooperation with law enforcement, or if you destroyed or doctored evidence (but that’s not accessory after the fact, but instead witness/evidence tampering - usually a felony in its own right)

Suppose your iron clad alibi is that you were checking into a hotel across town at the time of the murder. You don’t have to tell anybody that you were there, but you couldn’t call the bellman and ask him not to identify you if the cops come calling, or somehow doctor the receipt to show that you were there on a different day.

8

But there will be a cut point where you need to disclose your alibi or you won’t be able to use it in court.

And you don’t control the timing of that. The prosecutor and judge do. So you may well want to delay a couple weeks before disclosing your alibi. But if they’re in an all-fired hurry to arraign you, you might only have 24 or 48 hours after you’re arrested to either disclose or waive your right to use your alibi.

9

Agree generally. But I haven’t see a deadline that quick. In Washington, at least, a defendant would have a lot more time to decide if they wanted to proceed with alibi defense.

10

What others above have said. And let’s be realistic, this case is never going to trial without additional evidence of your guilt anyway. Having a motive, by itself, is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

11

Because I trust the jurors to acquit me more than I trust the coroner/cops/DA to not change the “facts” to make my alibi worthless. That exact scenario happened in Australia and the defendant was convicted. Also, if I get the DA to drop the case it will always hang over my head and can be brought back. If I am acquitted by a jury, double jeopardy applies and I don’t have to worry about that charge ever again.

Not doubting you but why? Why must I give the prosecutor insight to my defense before trial?

12

I think it’s because the State should have the right to investigate any claim of alibi. It could be a complete fabrication, and if brought up for the first time at trial there would not be time to look into it. In Washington, a defendant must also disclose if they’re relying on an insanity defense.

13

Broadly speaking, trials are not games of gotcha. Perry Mason notwithstanding.

The central idea is to uncover the truth, and let the consequences fall wherever the truth takes us. Both sides having a good look at the other side’s cards before trial is part of that fact-finding effort.

“Discovery” is the term of art, and it’s not the same for civil and criminal matters. And varies in detail from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in each case the underlying doctrinal idea is that the inevitable temptation to cheat is greatly deterred when the other side can see your cards ahead of time.

14

There are also practical matters. You can’t just show the court a video, or other piece of evidence. You need a witness to testify as to what the evidence is, and how it came to be before the court, and so on (for a security camera video, that’d likely be some security officer, saying that yes, this is the video taken from our lobby camera at such-and-such date and time). And if you have a witness, the court has to know who they are, so they can let them in and give them a seat in the waiting room and so on.

15

Don’t worry Homer. I have a fool proof strategy to get you out of here: surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the last. I tell you, the judge won’t know what hit him

16

Even in the UK this wouldn’t be a crime. The prosecution could use the fact you didn’t mention your albi as an argument against accepting it as true in court. Its not a crime in it’s own right.

AFAIK it wouldn’t matter in a case like the OP where the albi 100% iron clad. It doesn’t make it inadmissible, it’s just something the prosecution can bring up

17

IANAL, but I ‘d guess that in the UK, that’d be risking some sort of obstruction charge or perverting the course of justice. Or even assisting an offender.

18

“ by your silence, you misled the prosecution into thinking its case was stronger than it was, so here’s an order to pay their costs, just for wasting everybody’s time and money just so you could have your Perry Mason moment “

19

I believe it’s the judge that decides. It’s part of the pretrial motions and the prosecutor and defense submit requests but the judge decides.

Bryan Kohberger was arrested in December, 2022 for the murder of the four college kids and the final schedule for the trial was August (?) this year, but he pleaded guilty before the trial started.

IIRC, the deadline for submitting an alibi defense was sometime this spring this year.

20

I don’t understand this, as a lifelong American. You’re saying exonerating evidence stops being exonerating, simply because I exercised my right to remain silent? I understand this might be more of an issue in the UK, but I’m talking about regular American Constitutional jurisprudence.

If you’re innocent of a crime then you’re innocent of a crime, no matter what you said to whom and when, right? Are courts not interested in factual guilt or innocence anymore, just railroading the first/easiest suspect? What am I missing here?