Say I hear on the news that I’ve been charged with aggravated moppery. Regardless of whether I’m guilty or innocent, for whatever reason, I decided to flee rather than put myself to the tender mercies of the justice system.
Can the act of fleeing be used as evidence of guilt? I.e., only the guilty flee, as an innocent person who no reason to run.
Yes. flight | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
But this part:
is patently false. Plenty of innocent people have been sent up the river. And a defense attorney could I’m sure present arguments explaining why their clients chose to flee, despite being innocent.
[Moderating]
Thank you for phrasing this question in the hypothetical, and let’s please keep current events out of this thread, as there are enough other threads for those events.
This doesn’t make the evidence inadmissible-It just makes it questionable by the defense.
I already said it was admissible. From the link in my first post:
Furthermore, this case from Michigan, explains that “evidence of flight, which includes fleeing the scene of a crime, is admissible to support an inference of consciousness of guilt.”
A theme to which the Coens returned in True Grit:
So presumably the evidence of flight would be presented by the prosecution, then the onus falls on the defense to try to present an explanation why it may not be taken as evidence of guilt. The downside, I presume, is that they would have to find some way to show the defendant(s)’ state of mind. this could be tricky without putting them on the stand, thus opening them up to more interesting questions.
How much weight could a defense lawyer give to saying “this is not necessarily proof of guilt” without testimony to show it to be so in this case? As I understand trial law, the lawyer cannot simply start stating things “the defendants were afraid” without presenting some actual admissible evidence.
In the particular case, the defendants (or actually their lawyer) originally said they were hiding because of fear for their lives. I presume showing hate emails etc. would be admissible as evidence of this. But then there is the need to explain why they did not actively turn themselves in (or at least message “come here to pick us up”) when the charges were announced.
Some of you may recall that the white Ford Bronco chase wasn’t a part of the OJ trial. So, the legally correct answer would be, it depends.
There is a legal notion called res gestae. It refers to the criminal act. The prosecutor would argue that the act of fleeing was part of whatever criminal act occurred, and therefore it is relevant and admissible to proving guilt. The defense, of course, would be arguing that it is separate and a part from whatever crime was charged, and therefore not germane to the determination of guilt (similar to how it would not be relevant and admissible at a typical trial to present evidence, for example, that the defendant violated his bond and was remanded before trial).
IANAL, but if I were, I’d object to the prosecution introducing the evidence of flight, arguing that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. I’d hope for at least the chance to argue this in front of the judge, and I’d hope his honor liked the case of Scotch I sent him at xmas.
Techanically that’s correct. But a defense lawyer can say “sure he ran, but there are lots of reasons an innocent man might run in that situation.” And even provide some examples. In order to say “he ran because he was afraid of being framed,” the defendant would have to testify (or I guess there could be other evidence that supports it)
You may not be a lawyer, but you’re thinking like one. But in most cases, the evidence is probably coming in.
Two cases this Xmas, then.
Depends on the judge, but you’re getting closer.
The onus never falls on the defense. The prosecution must prove it’s case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Flight alone, is not enough to prove guilt, it can be evidence of possible guilt, but the prosecution would need a lot more. But this is one reason why attorney’s advise clients to turn themselves in.
You would get that chance. You could file a Motion in Limine, where you would have a chance to raise the issue you note prior to trial (unfair prejudice). In addition, before getting to probative versus prejudicial, you would argue relevance.
Let’s say the charge is drug trafficking, based on some undercover buys and video surveillance, and the cops obtain an arrest warrant. But when the cops make a phone call to the defendant to offer him a chance to come in and turn himself in, he instead decides to become scarce, and forces them to execute the warrant three weeks later at some flop house.
Why is that relevant to whether he was indeed dealing drugs? The issue to be decided at trial was whether the defendant was the guy who participated in the undercover purchase or was on tape, and whether the stuff he sold was actually illegal drugs. The fact that he may have not wanted to surrender to an arrest isn’t relevant to that determination. Moreover, if it is presented to the jury, there is a risk that they may decide to convict the defendant because he was uncooperative with police, rather than because the government proved that he was dealing drugs.
(Another potential argument is that this would distract from the issues of guilt. Let’s say the defense explains that he was previously beaten up by a cop, and so he’s scared to cooperate. Now we need to have a ‘’mini trial” on whether he was ever actually beaten up to decide whether he had a genuine fear of police or if this is just a lie he’s stating to justify running).
It is possible that the judge can rule that the fleeing is a legitimate part of the government’s case. Obviously, if there is a fleeing or eluding charge, it’s relevant. It might also be germane to establish some state of mind or awareness of some facts (e.g. you knew you weren’t just acting as a medical marijuana caregiver because when they police called you instead of providing a license you ran away).
Additionally, a judge might rule that it won’t come in unless the defendant “opens the door”. So, for example with the Michigan case, it might be a situation where the court rules that fleeing isn’t relevant unless the parents try to defend the charges by arguing that they were always trying to assist authorities with their investigation and disclosed what they knew when they knew it. At that point, the court might agree that the prosecutor can rebut this defense by showing that they absconded when police tried to contact them.
I think affirmative defenses (defenses for which the defense must produce evidence) can be described as putting the onus on the defense - unlike more normal defenses, which have no such requirement (by a “normal” defense, I mean something like “I didn’t do it” - in that case, the defense doesn’t need to provide any evidence at all, because the defense attorney can successfully argue that the prosecution witnesses disagree with each other, etc, and put up no evidence of his own - by contrast, an affirmative defense of “I did it but I was insane, or entrapped” does require defense evidence, and therefore some onus.
So I guess my wording was not lawyerly precise - what I intended was that the flight is additional evidence the defendant also believed he was guilty - or at least, that’s a logical inference and added to the other evidence. To counter that, the defense would need to show a reason why flight should not infer a guilty mind, or the inference of guilt may stick in the jury’s minds. I agree, flight alone should not be the sole or major determinant of guilt in a trial. It’s just one more data point that (usually) leans toward the prosecution.
I presume flight can be taken as an indicator of a guilty mind, or at least presented as such by the prosecution. “Not only did he sell the drugs, but by evading police afterwards this suggests he was well aware he was performing a criminal act.”
So if they wanted to go the “victim of police brutality” route, can they just bring that up, or does the prosecution have to “open the door” in some way by asserting the flight was for reason of a guilty mind? After all, bringing up a defendant’s past history with the law is a touchy area as I understand. Does that go both ways, or is the prosecution the only one so inhibited? Although obviously, telling the jury the defendant was “previously known to law enforcement” has a downside too.
Sure it can. It says “onus,” not “burden.” And it’s “beyond a reasonable doubt,” not “all.”
The burden being on the state means the state has the burden of production – meaning it has to come forward with evidence on every element, and the burden of persuasion, which matters when a jury remains unsure of a fact after the close of the evidence.
As a practical matter, there are things that, once the prosecution presents evidence of it, the defendant will need to explain if they don’t want to be convicted. E.g., video showing a defendant doing a crime. The onus will then be on the defense to explain that evidence away somehow.
Certainly, the prosecutor will want to present as much evidence as possible. But that’s the crux of the issue: is this part of proving the case, or is it irrelevant? Even if it is relevant, is it unfairly prejudicial, or does it open up other issues or concerns that will confuse the jury or turn the trial into a circus? The government is going to be arguing that it is germane to the issue of guilt, the defense is going to say that it is tangential to the issue to be decided, and the judge is going to be the gatekeeper who rules on what is coming in (subject to possible appeal).
Suppose, for example, that our drug dealer is 25 years old, but the government wants to present evidence that he once got in trouble in high school because he had a joint in his backpack. Per the prosecutor, this shows that the was familiar with, and had access to, illegal drugs. And it confirms that he has disregard for the law.
Nevertheless, should it come in? It is arguably too remote from the allegations of drug dealing now. It also risks unfairly tainting his reputation in the eyes of the jury - after all, lots of people get in trouble when they are younger, and change their ways, but if you allow the jury to consider this they may allow it to be the basis of a guilty verdict (“he’s a periodic law breaker”) instead of the real issue, which is whether he was dealing drugs. And, if the prosecutor is going to introduce this evidence to show that he is guilty of the crime, it is only fair that the defense can rebut it. So are we now going to have a trial that includes defense witnesses who will show that the defendant was actually covering for a friend? How far afield from the ultimate drug dealing charge are we going to go?
Flight from arrest is probably a closer issue, but it raises the same concerns. If the charge is that a person committed involuntary manslaughter because they allowed their son access to a weapon, then doesn’t that crime end when the kid used the gun? Or, at most, (and if you want to argue that their post shooting actions show that they were trying to cover their own complicity), when the kid was apprehended?
And, if the judge does decide to allow in the fact that they skipped town, doesn’t the defense get to rebut it? People withdrew thousands of dollars and go to a big city - maybe they were looking to hire a prominent lawyer, so they figured they should go to Detroit with retainer money. Yes, I realize that this is fanciful, but if I was the defense I’d be jumping on this opportunity to bring in a whole host of witnesses to testify to how distraught they were, how scared they were of reprisal, and how they were seeking help - the trial could easily become a huge referendum on how unfairly these poor maligned people were being treated.
The prosecution doesn’t really “open the door”, as that’s the notion that something that was otherwise irrelevant becomes relevant based on some issue that was raised in rebuttal. For the prosecutor, it’s just presenting your case in chief.
If part of that case was that the person had fled, or had some other indication of a guilty mind, the defense is entitled to present an alternate explanation. But if the government never gets into the issue of fleeing, it’s simply not relevant for the defense to try to explain why it happened.
(As you noted, you would also typically want to avoid any evidence that your client has experience as a criminal suspect)
The example of fleeing the scene of a crime suggesting consciousness of guilt makes sense to me. However, the same argument doesn’t necessarily apply to people who “flee” when they become aware (e.g. through news reports) that they are being sought in connection with some wrongdoing.
It seems to me it would be reasonable for evidence of flight to be admissible in the former case but not in the latter.