No reasonable person would think there was a bomb in the box. Only someone attempting to murder a person would think that. That would be the person who created the threat in the first place also. Imagine you grab someone’s gun just before they are about to shoot you and then claiming you tried to kill them if they pointed you gun back at you.
This falls in the category of the Yiddish definition of chutzpah, someone who kills their parents and then begs for mercy from the court because they are an orphan.
I can’t see how this line of thinking holds up in the real world. Imagine:
Police: “What if I ask your wife about your alibi? Will she say you were with her”
Perp confers with attorney: “I don’t want them to ask my wife, I was with my mistress.”
Atttorney: Checking my client’s alibi is blackmail, because this would reveal damage to his reputation and personal relationships.
The police holding an unloaded gun to someone’s head would be a coercive thread, if the police had loaded the gun, but not if it’s a gun that the suspect swears is unloaded.
Police are allowed to play stupid, and they’re allowed to lie. Columbo isn’t at fault because he’s simply acting on information that the suspect has given (or not contradicted). Columbo isn’t supposed to know the cigar box is loaded, he’s just pretending.
Police do all kinds of crazy and dishonest things in real life. They’re allowed to, there’s a big gray area, and they often aren’t challenged even when they cross the line. They’re accustomed to getting away with it.
No, why would you think that? Nobody needs to have reasonable cause to open a box they found, or show it to the defendant.
You’re right that a defense attorney ought to at least try and frame it as a coercive threat. But Columbo can easily play stupid, and nobody can contradict him. Or, the DA could argue that the defendant himself created the dangerous situation by loading the cigar box and not being forthcoming about the fact.
You’re right it’s unusual and contrived, it’s a TV show after all, but Columbo hasn’t done any actionable misdeeds here.
Teeny tiny nitpick: Columbo couldn’t have pretended he was clueless-- the cigar box was a duplicate, and this was a known fact to the police, who would know they didn’t recover it from the accident. Columbo admitted as much at the end of that clip posted upthread (thanks to @John_DiFool for that).
Not that I’m arguing for @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper 's argument, which, as I understand it, is:
It’s a crime for a detective to trick a murder suspect into revealing his guilt by making him think he may be killed with his own disguised weapon.
I don’t think that would be considered a ‘crime’, let alone even bad police practice. As has been said, police lie to and try to trick suspects routinely. There’s plenty of ways I imagine a good defense attorney could try to get the evidence thrown out in the real world, but as to it being an actual crime, I doubt it.
Last time I binge-watched a few columbo episodes, I was surprised how few (in fact none) of the final reveals would have actually worked IRL. Columbo usually finds something circumstantial that yes is damning in some sense, but if the suspect just shrugged it off it would never be sufficient in court. But instead, the suspect of course confesses all.
It’s a clever show in that the battle of wits is so engaging; seeing the smug person who (mis-)underestimated Columbo get bested, that we choose to go along with it.
Also, in terms of bullying, there was at least one episode which was solved by Columbo violently shaking a woman he knew to be the accomplice until she broke down and agreed to help him entrap the killer.
That’s what stood out to me in the ‘cigar box on the tram’ clip posted upthread, aside from the question of the legality of the trick. I would have thought that Columbo had had a cop or two with him on the tram to back him up (there were a couple episodes where he tricked the killer into thinking they were alone and the killer tried to kill Columbo, and he had a couple cops hiding, waiting in the wings to arrest him). But it was just Columbo, the suspect, and the William Windom character in the tram. I doubt Columbo was recording anything, given 70s technology. It seems kind of flimsy to rely on the Windom character backing Columbo up in court on what happened. But, that’s TV for you
What episode was that, do you remember? I did a rewatch of every Columbo episode a couple years ago, and I don’t remember that one. But my memory ain’t what it used to be
Is the OP referring to how it would be perceived n 1972 or 2025?
Given how SCOTUS has given wide latitude to police to lie to suspects and otherwise trick them get them to confess, Columbo’s actions would be allowed. Add to this, the cops can violate suspects’ right to remain silent because SCOTUS has been putting hurdles to properly invoke that right, I think the courts would distinguish between “Confess and I’ll remove the threat.” e.g. holding a gun to the suspect’s head and a threat that cannot be removed thus it makes no difference if the suspect confesses. I know that makes no sense but neither does:
Telling a suspect lies to get them to confess like, “We have an eyewitness.” or “Your buddy just rolled on you.”
Keeping silent does not mean you invoked your right to remain silent.
“I think I need a lawyer.” is not asking for a lawyer.
&c.
This is the assumption most people here are making and it’s the assumption Columbo makes but it’s not true. What if he knew only after the bombing that his wife planted it?
Overall this is an interesting hypothetical. I don’t know where courts would come out but I will note that:
The police can’t coerce a witness to give a statement. Putting someone in fear of their life if they don’t confess is coercion.
Sometimes, an action can be considered testimonial. For example, under the Act of Production Doctrine, compelling a person to produce documents can be deemed to violate the Fifth Amendment prohibition against self incrimination when the mere act of producing documents has a testimonial effect, such as showing that the defendant knew the documents exist, that the defendant had the documents, and that they are authentic. Similarly, in the Columbo example, the act of throwing the cigars out the window had a testimonial effect of showing that the defendant believed that the cigars contained a bomb.
My hunch is a court would exclude Columbo’s testimony because the action of throwing the box out the door showed that the defendant believed there was a bomb in the box and the action was coerced.
There are quite a few blogs that go through each Columbo episode and evaluate whether the killer would be convicted or not. Some are a complete no-brainer but a significant proportion probably wouldn’t lead to a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ verdict from a jury given the evidence involved.
Sure, but as I say, in most cases the killer confesses or does something right at the end to prove their guilt. Whereas my meaning is that the thing that pushes them to do that is usually a nothingburger that they should have ignored.
So, I guess it comes down to a psychological question. Giving credit to the Columbo (as I want to), it could be argued that the way he gets the murderer to underestimate them, then gradually needles away at them, showing he’s absolutely on to them…sets up an environment where they prematurely think the game is up.
Like a chess match where you’re being repeatedly checked, and the opponent is bringing in more pieces, and resign…before seeing the computer analysis that says the attack was actually going nowhere.
I don’t want to. Nor do I want to to The Closer’s Brenda Leigh Johnson, or even CI’s Goren (in some episodes).
I think TVs shows that allow cops that much leeway are bad for this country, that the slowly shape gullible viewers’ minds to think “the ends justify the means” in real life, leading to the excesses excused by the police now. But I am on the verge of creating a hijack of a hijack.
Let me just say, having Columbo trick smart perps every week into confessing, with no actual evidence, when they should just SHUT UP, is as poor a writing tool as Perry Mason getting the Real Killer to confess, with no actual evidence, in open court every week. Once in a while, fine, but every frikkin time?
“About to kill him with it” seems to imply a level of volition, of intent, that I don’t see was present. If a would-be murderer secretly replaced a dummy grenade with a live one, and then some doofus who thought it was a dummy grenade pulled the pin in the murderer’s presence, was doofus about to “kill” him or “get him killed”? I see an active/passive difference there.
Alas no, and some quick googling and chatGPT-ing has failed to find it.
I remain absolutely sure about Columbo psychologically breaking a female accomplice, but I think maybe he didn’t physically shake her as that’s the bit GPT is politely telling me I must be crazy.
@Just_Asking_Questions I agree with your rant, but I think it’s true of virtually all crime drama.
Suspects, police and juries sometimes make bad decisions on the basis of what they’ve seen on crime or legal dramas. And I’m not sure what the solution is; I don’t want to constrain this kind of fiction and nor do I think it’s feasible for every crime or legal drama to include a disclaimer about rights or whatever.
So yeah my giving Columbo credit was about within the logic of that universe – that he put enough pressure on the perp that they folded, whether or not it was sufficient grounds in court. But in the real world, all of it would be bad. Columbo would be an astonishingly lucky jerk, who harasses people long before having any knowledge of guilt.
The first 26 posts in this thread were posted in another thread, and then split off. Anyone subscribed to the original thread had their subscription copied when the posts were moved. I have also been getting notices, even though this is my first activity in the spin-off thread.
In many respects he is a poor detective. He makes a snap judgement on who did it ad then never searches for any evidence that might contradict it. It just happens it’s always right.
Isn’t Inspector a rather high rank in police organizations- higher than a commander or a captain? If Columbo made such a high rank he presumably has a very good track record.
