According to the Wikipedia article on D. B. Cooper, prosecutors sidestepped the question of the perpetrator’s expiring statute of limitations by issuing an indictment against “John Doe, aka Dan Cooper” for the hijacking. This was done despite the fact that no one had any clue who the hijacker was or even if he was still alive.
Of what value is a statute of limitations if it can be circumvented simply by indicting the unknown criminal? Were there special circumstances in the case of the Cooper hijacking? If Cooper were found and arrested tomorrow, would he have a legitimate defense that the indictment was invalid because it didn’t refer to him, and/or because he wasn’t given the right to be present at the indictment?
Has this method of avoiding an expiring statute of limitations been tested in court?
I don’t know the Legal answer to the question, but I understand that statute of limitations exist because:
Memories fade with time. A trial where all the witnesses are testifying about things that happened 50 years ago can easily result in a miscarriage of justice due to gaps in memory or outright errors that have crept into memory. Can you remember what your teacher was wearing on your first day of 5th grade?
Someone who committed a crime many years ago, but who has not, to anyone’s knowledge, committed one for a long time, has, by the fact that they have kept clean, demonstrated that they are rehabilitated and do not need to be incarcerated.
I also think it’s unfair to punish people for things they did half a lifetime ago.
There was a documentary on HBO about a sex crimes unit. They had some cases where they did not have a suspect but they did have DNA. They were able to indite the DNA because it identifies the suspect.
They had to wait for a name to match up with the DNA.
This was my recollection from reading about this issue - there had to be some identifying information. DNA secifically identifies an individual, even if you do not know his name or location. An indictment will not be tossed out because “you indicted a guy everyone called James Brown, but his real name is Sam Jones”. You can indict John Doe if the guy in jail won’t tell you his name and you don’t know. You can indict a guy who is hiding from the law.
What I don’t get is how you can simply issue a warrant “we are looking for someone” and expect that will bypass the statue of limitations. I suppose some clever attorney is basing this on the theory that the description will do? But a vague description means any passing guy who looks vaguely Cooper-ish can be arrested and hauled into court. Sounds like an appeal ruling waiting to happen, but I suppose it will not happen until someone is arrested and has an attorney.
I agree with the OP and await an answer. For example, why couldn’t a beat cop issue a littering citation to “John Doe, the person who threw a cigarette butt at the corner of Main Street on June 10, 2003” on the off chance 40 years from now an old man grows a conscience and confesses?
I would disagree with that as well. DNA information, while it identifies an individual, does not put a person on notice that they are being charged with a crime. Therefore that person can’t preserve or collect evidence that might tend to prove their innocence. So, 40 years later when they are caught, they are at a disadvantage because witnesses have died, memories faded, etc.
The thought process behind that smacks of “We know you are guilty, so we are not letting you off on a technicality.” As said upthread, an SOL serves an important due process purpose.
The guy running from the law or in jail not providing his name is put on notice by an indictment that specifies him. If he chooses to continue to run instead of pursuing his remedies in the legal system, then he made a tactical decision to let memories fade and witnesses die. It would be his fault.
I believe that indicting DNA is an absurd run around of the process.
Indicting DNA is a concept I saw in Law and Order, which of course tends to steal these ideas from the headlines, where I’m pretty sure I saw it too.
I suppose it depends how specifically incriminating the DNA is; found at the scene vs. found inside the victim? Someone who recently had sex with a rape and murder victim would know he is a suspect. However he hides his identity, he should reasonabl;y know.
I guess the problem is, who is anyone? A name is not specific, even name, date of birth and city of birth are not unique. Even DNA is not necessarily unique. Any indictment does its best to state who it is about, then leaves it up to the court (and the defendant) to argue also “that does not mean me” among other defences.
What I see as intolerable is to indict a sufficiently vague “person” that it can be made to fit whomever is arrested much later. DNA is very specific, down to one or two people (or very very rarely, a few - multiple births are usually fraternal). So is a fingerprint. A description or an artist sketch is not.
I would argue, that while not unique, a name is specific enough to put you on notice that you have been indicted. I don’t imagine that you could be hauled into court years later and argue that, “Oh, I didn’t know that you were looking for me, I thought that it was another Horace L. Bumblewood that you were looking for. I had no notice.”
DNA on the other hand gives no notice to anyone. If I was sitting here looking at a printout of a DNA sample from me, I wouldn’t recognize it. And the point that if you had sex recently with a rape/murder victim, you should be on notice, I disagree with. You would be effectively “indicting” everyone who recently had sex with her.
It would be like indicting John Doe who was seen leaving the Fifth Third Bank on Elm Street on Friday, July 22, 2007. Hell, I could have been leaving the bank that day, but that doesn’t put me on notice. The effect of that would necessitate everyone who could possibly be connected to a crime come into the police station and prove their innocence if they wanted to take advantage of a SOL. That is backwards of how we do things in this country.
But if there’s enough evidence that that particular John Doe was guilty, even without having to have him there in person, what’s the harm? Sure, he isn’t guilty of evading police, but if he happens to be found, why shouldn’t the sentence start right then?
And, if I understand trials in absentia correctly, you can, if you have a valid reason, get the old judgement thrown out and go for a new trial, if there’s something they missed.
I’m not sure what you are saying. What is a “particular John Doe”? By definition, John Does are not particular persons. They are unknown persons with X, Y, and Z characteristics.
What is factually different between, “John Doe with DNA Profile X” and “John Doe who raped Suzy Smith on April 14, 2010”? They both specify only one possible person and they both (IMHO) fail under due process grounds for the same reason: If someone is accused of committing the crime, neither of those indictments puts the eventual arrestee on notice that he needs to preserve or collect evidence for his defense. Therefore he is prejudiced when the trial arrives because memories have faded and witnesses have died. That’s the harm.
I’m not sure, but don’t full trials in abstentia only happen when the accused has illegally fled the jurisdiction after having been formally charged?
ETA: One other reason for SOLs are the idea that a person shouldn’t have to keep looking over his shoulder for certain crimes committed many years ago. John Doe indictments fail this test as well.
No, but theoretically ANYONE could be brought to trial on the hijacking. Hell, I wasn’t even BORN in 1971, but if some swinging dick prosecutor decided that I was John Doe, then I have already been indicted, depriving me of my right to a grand jury. It wouldn’t go much further than that, though, if I can prove my age.
However, if they charge Harold R. Humbleford IV, 82 years old, from Topeka, KS with the crime, he will now be forced to stand trial for the offense. This despite the fact that the SOL has expired on the crime, but John Doe was indicted. The law starts with a presumption of innocence, so if Harold is factually innocent of the crime, he was not put on notice by the John Doe indictment, therefore he failed to preserve or collect evidence, witnesses have died, etc. and thereby defeating the entire purpose of having a SOL in the first place.
To get back to the OP, doing such an indictment cost the prosecutors almost nothing (might even gain them something, next election-wise), and might be useful if ‘D.B. Cooper’ is ever brought to trial. So there was no significant downside to doing it.
Of course, one of the first tactics of his defense lawyer would be to use the statute of limitations, but this indictment might possibly hold up there. So it was worth trying. It’d be up to the Court to decide – if a trial ever occurs. (Note that D.B. Cooper would be in his mid-80’s now, probably past normal life expectancy.)
SO this is a legal question we should look to a lawyer to answer - is the purpose of an indictment to say “we are charging a specific person identified as follows that we have/have not caught” or is it also to put that person on notice? Is knowledge of an indictment against yourself a necessary condition for an indictment to be vaid? (or “knowledge within a reasonable time”?)
