Legally not guilty but?

Factual Questions
1

I’m not involved with this case, not a lawyer, not in any way connected, all that jazz.

My question is, under the American legal system, what, if any, remedy does society or the court have with regard to someone who is clearly (more on that later) factually guilty, and quite probably a continuing danger to society, if that person is found legally not guilty?

The basis for my question is a really horrible story I read today about the ongoing trial of a pedophile. The story isn’t for the faint of heart, so I’ll make it not clickable:

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110608/NEWS01/110608002/Bradley-admits-raping-asphyxiating-young-patients?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|frontpage

To summarize, for those who don’t wish to read the link, a man videotaped himself committing violent sexual abuse of toddlers and young children. The police got hold of him and the video evidence, however, there may be some problems with the search that found the tapes. According to the article, his strategy may consist of not mounting a defense during his trial, and then trying to challenge the admissibility of the video evidence in an appeal.

The defendant has admitted to the acts, and there’s video evidence to back his admission up. Now, I’m a big fan of due process and the Fourth Amendment, but what legally could be done in a case like this if the defendant was found legally not guilty? I’m not really interested in ideas like “Just publish his name and address in the newspaper and turn off his 911 service,” although I wouldn’t be shocked to find that that’s all that could be done.

Anyone familiar with the law care to comment?

2

Well, if you could punish someone found not guilty, what would be the point of a trial?

If he’s found not guilty, he gets off scot-free (assuming he’s not found guilty of some lesser offence).

There’s still the civil courts - he could still be sued by the victims of his crime.

Did you say he confessed, though? I would imagine that’ll make it hard to pull off a successful not-guilty defence.

3

IANAL - I don’t even watch lawyer shows on TV.

If the confession was obtained on the basis of the tainted evidence, would it not be inadmissable? [Fruit of the poisonous tree link]

4

IANALE. Just guessing, to be honest. Sounds likely, assuming that confession was obtained on the basis of that evidence (the OP doesn’t specify).

5

My non-lawyer guess is that that rule does not apply in this situation. While the video tape may be the reason the perp was brought in for questioning, I don’t think it is accurate to say the confession was obtained ‘on the basis of’ the video. The police could have questioned him for any number of reasons, they didn’t need the video to do that. I think his confession would be considered a separate piece of evidence.

6

As I understand it, it’s not a confession so much as it was a concession in court, through his attorney, that the videos are accurate. The defense claims that the videos were found by searching a building that was not named on the search warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrant describe “with particularity” the places to be searched and the things to be seized.

The accused opted for a bench trial, with no jury, so the judge is the finder of fact. The judge ruled that the videos were admissible, and the defense wishes to appeal that ruling. There are times in which an adverse ruling may be immediately appealed (an “interlocutory appeal”) but in general, if the accused feels the trial judge has made an error, he must continue the trial, and then appeal the error after he’s been found guilty.

So let’s imagine that the Delaware Supreme Court agrees that the video was improperly seized, and excludes it from the evidence.

The guilty verdict would then be overturned.

But this doesn’t mean he goes free. He would be subject to re-trial, a trial that would have to proceed without the videos or any evidence derived from the videos. Since most of the victims were discovered by matching faces to video images, it could prove difficult to find a victim. And since most of the victims were toddlers, it would be even more difficult to find a victim that could testify.

But he raped over 80 children, and even before the videos were found, the police had reason to suspect him – that’s why they were executing a search warrant. So it’s not impossible that some evidence may exist independent of the videos that would be sufficient for a conviction.

And at this retrial, he could not take the stand to deny the acts, because even though the video would not be admissible during the state’s case-in-chief, if he denied the acts the videos could likely be admitted for the purpose of refuting his testimony.

So it’s not a foregone conclusion that a retrial would fail to convict him.

But let’s say it did.

The videos would be admissible against him in a civil trial – and if the civil trial follows a criminal acquittal, he probably can’t refuse to testify as to any case for which he was acquitted, since his testimony would not subject him to criminal liability. I can’t see any way the families would not win decisively in that circumstance.

7

If he’s not guilty…he’s not guilty. Nothing the system can do. The rest of society can shun him though, see O.J. Simpson, and look for other crimes the person may have committed.

8

True but unfortunately the penalty would just be a judgment for financial damages, wouldn’t it? Can a civil court impose penalties like injunctions against contact with children? Requiring registration as a sex offender?

9

Civil courts are where you go for injunctions, yes.

No, a civil court cannot register you as a sex offender. That’s a criminal punishment.

10

If the video is ruled to have been improperly seized, what happens to the video? Does it remain in the possession of the police? Do the police return it?

11

They could, with restrictions, try him for something else he’s done. Not a legal professional, but I think they’d have to find something unrelated to the earlier case. However, this sort of criminal probably has such a violation, if they’re looking for it.

12

Doesn’t the court system function on the basis that it’s better to let 100 who are guilty go free than imprison one person who is innocent?

13

In theory, but as seen over the last several years with the re-opening of decades old cases with new DNA evidence, and many people be exonerated, that principle has not always been upheld.

14

They could possibly try to get him civilly committed as a mentally ill person who is a danger to society. I don’t know how well that would go and I’m not sure if you can use illegally seized evidence in such a context (can you?).

15

Child pornography is illegal to possess. I believe the police wouldn’t be allowed to return it even it they couldn’t use it as evidence.

16

Couldn’t they return it to him, and then arrest him for possession? That would be a handy way out of this mess.

17

There actually has been some discussion about the possibility of civil commitment. Delaware Governor Jack Markell asked Widener University Law School Dean Linda Ammons to make a report on the Bradley case, and her report had about 70 recommendations, this being among them:

“For the General Assembly:
9.) Consider whether a sexually violent or dangerous predatory statute, which requires civil commitment of those who are a threat to the public but cannot be successfully prosecuted, should be adopted. Twenty states have such a provision.”

I’m not sure if she’s 100% accurate on that one; many states that have civil commitment statutes require that the person being committed has previously been convicted of and imprisoned for multiple sex offenses, as well as display some sort of mental condition that makes the the person at danger to himself, the community, or both. It’s possible that Delaware could try to pass a civil commitment law specifically for Bradley’s situation, but realistically it almost certainly won’t come to that. There would have to be a stone cold, flagrant, inexcusable consitutional violation completely indefensible under any possible present or future exception to the exclusionary rule for the appellate courts to throw out the mass convictions of one of the worst serial sex offenders in anyone’s recent memory.

18

That sounds suspiciously like entrapment, and also, how could hey force him to take it?

19

The Fourth Amendment generally protects individuals from criminal, not civil, liability. So… as a VERY general statement… yes.

A civil court can order an individual civilly committed if, because of a mental disease or defect, he is a danger to himself or others, and use evidence that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to do so.

20

Is that settled law? For some reason I had it in my head that it was an unsettled issue whether the exclusionary rule applied to evidence introduced in involuntary civil commitment proceedings.