Destroying materials that could be construed as evidence against you, but actually aren't

[Little_Nemo]

@Lemur866

But how, at your trial for destroying evidence, are you going to convince the jury that you didn’t really destroy evidence? Because the evidence you would have used to show your innocence is what you destroyed.

If the jury believed you that what you destroyed wasn’t really evidence, then you walk away. Except, will they believe you?

Obviously I’m hoping I don’t get caught destroying the evidence. But again, you’re misunderstanding the premise - it’s specifically stated that this evidence isn’t going to show I’m innocent. It’s false evidence that makes me look guilty of a crime I didn’t commit. So if I’m at a trail, the the evidence was going to be used against me anyway. I don’t lose anything by trying to destroy it.

[Lemur866]

Well, I guess I don’t understand the question.

If you destroy evidence that the prosecution really believes would have been evidence of your guilt, then of course you could be charged. The fact that you’re not actually innocent would only help you if the prosecutors believed you were innocent, and if they believed you were innocent they wouldn’t prosecute you.

It seems to me that you’re in the exact same position as someone who is actually guilty. An actually guilty person who destroys evidence might get away with it if they convince a jury, or if they convince the prosecution before trial, or if they never become a suspect. That you’re actually innocent doesn’t change anything.

[Boyo_Jim]

That’s what you call one of those conundrums.

Do I destroy materials that makes me look guilty even though I’m not, or do I look even more guilty by destroying what the police are claiming is incriminating evidence?

Oddly enough, by destroying this material, I am destroying the evidence that I am not destroying incriminating evidence.

[Little_Nemo]

@Lemur866

Well, I guess I don’t understand the question.

If you destroy evidence that the prosecution really believes would have been evidence of your guilt, then of course you could be charged. The fact that you’re not actually innocent would only help you if the prosecutors believed you were innocent, and if they believed you were innocent they wouldn’t prosecute you.

It seems to me that you’re in the exact same position as someone who is actually guilty. An actually guilty person who destroys evidence might get away with it if they convince a jury, or if they convince the prosecution before trial, or if they never become a suspect. That you’re actually innocent doesn’t change anything.

Imagine two parallel situations. One is you committed a crime and you have possession of real evidence that points towards your guilt. The other is you haven’t committed any crime but you have possession of false evidence that makes it look like you committed a crime. In either case, it’s to your benefit to destroy the evidence. And to an outsider who deosn’t know if you’re guilty or innocent, the two acts look identical.

[Saint_Cad]

Does it matter if you do not know you are under investigation or that a crime was committed? For example, you have an argument with a friend and you drive home and to blow off some steam you dig up your prized foxglove collection not knowing that 15 minutes earlier your friend died of digitalis poisoning.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Intent matters is you are being charged with spoliation as an independent crime. If the spoliation is simply being used to infer guilt in an underlying crime, intent is irrelevant.

[Waenara]

For those who are saying that washing the deer blood off your car could be viewed by the police as a crime - how long do you need to refrain from washing your car? The wheels of justice often turn slowly - should you feel obligated to drive your bloody car around for days? Weeks? How long do you have to wait before going to the autobody shop to repair your damage before you don’t have to fear prosecution?

What if the person who hit the deer had no knowledge of the hit and run in their town? I know that, personally, I very rarely watch local news or read the newspaper. So if I hose of my car or take it to be fixed and the police find that suspicious, how could I prove a negative (that I didn’t know about the hit and run).

[JKellyMap]

@Little_Nemo

Imagine two parallel situations. One is you committed a crime and you have possession of real evidence that points towards your guilt. The other is you haven’t committed any crime but you have possession of false evidence that makes it look like you committed a crime. In either case, it’s to your benefit to destroy the evidence. And to an outsider who deosn’t know if you’re guilty or innocent, the two acts look identical.

True. It sems to me you see this more (in TV, films, and real life) not so much with “destroying evidence”, but with “running away from the scene of a crime” (and its variant “not admitting to being in the vicinity of a crime when questioned by police”). Innocent people routinely have to weigh the “definite hassle of dealing with the police, and possibly becoming a suspect myself” vs. “taking a small risk that I’ll have to end up dealing with the police anyway, only this time my mere act of running away/not telling the whole truth could make me even more suspicious in their eyes”.

[Irishman]

@Lemur866

But if they think you really committed the main crime, but can’t prove it, but can prove that you destroyed what might have been evidence, then they’re very likely to try to nail you, and you’d have to defend yourself in court by arguing that the evidence you destroyed wasn’t really evidence of a crime, and a jury would have to believe you. And since the evidence is now destroyed, because you destroyed it, it seems reasonable to believe that you destroyed the evidence because you really were guilty.

@Little_Nemo

Obviously I’m hoping I don’t get caught destroying the evidence. But again, you’re misunderstanding the premise - it’s specifically stated that this evidence isn’t going to show I’m innocent. It’s false evidence that makes me look guilty of a crime I didn’t commit. So if I’m at a trail, the the evidence was going to be used against me anyway. I don’t lose anything by trying to destroy it.

There seems to be two points at issue.

1. Is it a crime in and of itself to destroy this “evidence” that does not actually pertain to the murder, even if the police might reasonably be able to think it is related?

2. Which is more advantageous for the suspect?

With regards to question 1, I think it parses down to what is evidence. The “evidence” being destroyed really does have nothing to do with the eventual murder, ergo the person is really not guilty of destroying evidence related to a crime. However, the police/prosecution might reasonably be able to conclude the evidence is related to the crime, and so on their perception they think you are guilty of destroying evidence related to the murder. And if they think you are guilty of that crime, they can charge you for it even if they don’t have enough evidence to charge you with the murder itself. They may be trying to use a conviction on the evidence charge to help support prosecuting you for the murder, too, or they may just be trying to get what they think they can win. So in that case you find yourself charged, you have to be able to convince the jury that your story is correct while the prosecution is trying really hard to make the jury think your story is suspect.

With regards to question 2, I think that is much more circumstantial. I’m not sure it is to your advantage to approach the cops cold with this “evidence” and your story, unless it is something that the evidence itself could clear you, but if the cops come around asking questions, it is probably your best bet to say “I’m busy, but I can come to the station later this afternoon,” then immediately call a lawyer.

@Little_Nemo

Imagine two parallel situations. One is you committed a crime and you have possession of real evidence that points towards your guilt. The other is you haven’t committed any crime but you have possession of false evidence that makes it look like you committed a crime. In either case, it’s to your benefit to destroy the evidence. And to an outsider who deosn’t know if you’re guilty or innocent, the two acts look identical.

Agreed the situation looks the same to the outside observer. This is where having a lawyer is probably a good idea. If you find yourself in possession of something that could incriminate you in a specific crime (you are aware of a crime, not just there might be a hit and run victim somewhere in your hometown), it is time to seek a lawyer before destroying said evidence. YMMV.

@Saint_Cad

Does it matter if you do not know you are under investigation or that a crime was committed? For example, you have an argument with a friend and you drive home and to blow off some steam you dig up your prized foxglove collection not knowing that 15 minutes earlier your friend died of digitalis poisoning.

Well, I would think it hard for you to avoid doing something that could incriminate you if you didn’t know there was a crime to cover up. Obviously the authorities are going to interpret anything they uncover with the possible interpretation that you did know about the crime (because you did it), and thus your destruction of your foxglove collection was actually hiding the evidence that you were using it to poison your friend. Again, this is where you have to rely on a) what other leads the cops have, b) how convincing your story is, c) what other evidence is in play (like an alibi, witnesses, etc), and probably a number of other things.

Can they charge you with a crime? Yes. Are you guilty of a crime? No. Can you convince a jury?

[md2000]

Plus, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intent as well with destroying evidence?

After all, someone who hit a deer but can’t afford the repair bill or doesn’t want to put in a claim with their insurance (rate would go up) is still going to wash the car, pull out the dents so they don’t look quite as bad, replace the broken headlight assembly (and toss the old broken one in a dumpster at the parts store after verifying the cheap after-market replacement matched) etc. So it’s hard to say “it’s obvious he was only destroying evidence”. It’s just as plausibly a legitimate DIY repair job.

Eventually it boils down to what a judge and jury believe.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Waenara

For those who are saying that washing the deer blood off your car could be viewed by the police as a crime - how long do you need to refrain from washing your car? The wheels of justice often turn slowly - should you feel obligated to drive your bloody car around for days? Weeks? How long do you have to wait before going to the autobody shop to repair your damage before you don’t have to fear prosecution?

What if the person who hit the deer had no knowledge of the hit and run in their town? I know that, personally, I very rarely watch local news or read the newspaper. So if I hose of my car or take it to be fixed and the police find that suspicious, how could I prove a negative (that I didn’t know about the hit and run).

ahem Read the post immediately above yours.