Why do crime suspects cover their faces when there are TV cameras/photographers around? Can this behavior be brought up in a trial?
[best Perry Mason voice]
“Mr. Kaputnick, why did you cover your face for the cameras if you aren’t guilty?”
[/best Perry Mason voice]
Is that the conclusion you’d draw? I would infer that the arrestee didn’t want to be recognised because it’s embarrassing to be seen being hauled around by the cops.
My reply would be – “I covered my face because I’m not guilty, but if anyone who knew me recognised me on television, then they might be likely to assume I’m guilty and my reputation would be shot.”
I don’t think a judge is going to agree that this evidence is relevant.
Now as to whether such evidence would be admissible otherwise … I can’t think of any rule of evidence off the top of my head that would disallow it (but then, I’m not a trial attorney, so maybe I’m missing something). In any case, who would you get to testify to this? A television reporter? Not likely.
Of course, if/when the arrestee’s name is announced, face covering becomes a moot point.
Often shame, Jefferey Dahamer was blind as a bat without his glasses, but never wore them to court so that he couldn’t see the victims’ families.
You don’t think innocent people would have any reason to cover their faces? - I seem to recall cases where angry mobs have congregated outside police stations when a suspect has been brought in for questioning; some of those suspects turn out to be the wrong guy, but the mob wouldn’t care.
In the Portsmouth anti-paedophile riots a couple of years back, mobs trashed a man’s house and car (and probably would have injured or killed the man himself if they had the chance), why? - because they had found out that the man was a *Paediatrician and they were too stupid or pumped to know the difference.