I would have loved to have been there…selling insurance, penny stocks, Amway, make-money-stuffing-envelopes schemes, etc.
Okay, let’s say the psychic is legit and she did help the police. Wouldn’t they kind of HAVE to release the information, at least in court? Legally, I don’t believe she’d be able to ask that.
Bricker, et al, wouldn’t she be forced to testify?
And let’s say that Mama Fortuna’s carnival is setting up at the Spectrum. Ooh, a harpy, and a manticore!
Not if the prosecution can create and document other means of finding evidence. Instead of ‘Following the psychic’s instructions, we went to-’ the reports say ‘While investigating a domestic disturbance, we noticed-’
Bricker, et al, wouldn’t she be forced to testify?
[/QUOTE]
Probably, but why? The above method makes the trial much easier.
I guess it depends on the kind of evidence. No court is going to take a psychic’s testimony on what a dead person said, at least I don’t think so, but if the psychic tells the police where evidence or body is found, I see no reason to bring the psychic into it. After all the police are out looking for such things all the time, how they find them won’t matter.
In my opinion, yes, that is evidence that is possibly exculpatory and should be turned over to the defense under Brady v. Maryland. More specifically, if a “psychic detective” led law enforcement to the body of a murder victim in a hidden location, I believe defense counsel would be entitled to investigate the possibility that maybe the guy who led the cops to the body is the f&#ing murderer!*
Police: Police station.
Caller: Hello. There’s a dead body down 5 miles in the woods past Miller’s pond in a culvert. Cause of death is 37 stab wounds, 30 of which were post mortem.
Police: How do you know this?
Caller: I’m psychic.
Police: Holy God! Do you know who the killer was?
Caller: Frank Patsy over on 123 Setup Street. Say, can I remain confidential?
Police: Of course! No judge would require law enforcement to turn over a confidential psychic informant in circumstances like these!
Now you know why real psychics never contact the police first. Police departments that use psychics call them when they want help.
And, of course, the most obvious thing is psychics don’t go around looking for dead bodies unless they are asked.
And then, the psychics lead them to dead bodies and evidence in murder cases, and the police don’t have to release that information to defense counsel?
It depends.
I think we should start our analysis by considering what role the psychic’s information had in the case. We started this sub-topic with Guin’s musing: “Okay, let’s say the psychic is legit and she did help the police.”
pravnik expanded that hypothetical to actually leading law enforcement to the body of a murder victim in a hidden location.
In pravnik’s version, the fact that a psychic knew the precise location of the body is almost certainly exclupatory evidence. If the prosecution’s theory of the case permits an inference that only someone with guilty knowledge could possibly know the location of the body, then the fact that the psychic knew must be revealed to the defense.
On the other hand, if knowing the location of the body doesn’t require an inference of guilty knowledge, then perhaps the fact that a psychic was involved isn’t Brady material.
Consider this: a killer runs a blog. Ten days after hiding the body, he posts pictures of the hiding place and a account of the killing on the blog. Several readers call police and advise them to look at the blog. Relying on the blog, they search the hiding place and discover the body, and then arrest the killer. Are the original tipster’s identities discoverable under Brady?
No. Brady and its progeny require the disclosure of evidence favorable to the accused. In that case, the identites of the tipsters are not favorable (or unfavorable) to the accused.
Now let’s consider the more general question - the psychic offers some sort of tip to the police.
The same calculus applies to the question of whther or not the prosecution must reveal the psychic’s name to the defense: if the psychic’s knowledge permits an inference that HE is the truly guilty party, then it must be revealed.
A more interesting question is: to what extent might police rely on a tip from a psychic?
In the real world, tips to police must be judged by what indicia of reliability they have. A tip from a known informant, describing a crime with specificity, is sufficient to create probable cause. A tip from an anonymous source, with little specificity, may not not even establish reasonable, articulable suspicion for a Terry stop. (Florida v. JL).
In our alternate, psychics-are-real world, we’ve already assumed that psychic powers have passed the Frye or Daubert standard for admissibilty as testimony. If that’s the case, and if there is some method for the police to judge whther they’re speaking to a recognized psychic as opposed to a crank, then I imagine psychic tips would be accorded at least as much reliability as that granted to an anonymous informant who provides a very specific tip, as in Alabama v. White.
Thanks, Bricker. For what it’s worth, I don’t really believe that psychics are real, (although I’m sure there are individuals who believe they are psychics), I was just curious as to the what if.
What if a cop does an illegal search (no warrant, no R&PG)? When asked “What was your grounds for the search?” the cop trots out a fake psychic and says “He said to look there.” If the judge believed it, would that make the search findings admissible?
I guess that psychic certification program is really important, raising the prior testing and/or Three Psychics rules?
I found a certification program done by a network of psychics. I am always careful with these networks. You call up and pay $4 a minute to get a reading from a psychic. In my town you can get a 30 minute reading for about $35. I know they do their own certification so there is room for cheating. I just don’t have a good feeling about this kind of set-up. But I did read their material about readings, what they are, what you can expect and not expect and found this material to be accurate. So you pay your money and take your chances. If anyone posting here decides to try a reading, please let us know what you think, be fair. Look for the one solid thing you are told the psychic could never have known.
Since you have made this post, lekatt has made five posts claiming that psychics are real, with no objection from you, leading me to believe that you do not object to hijacks as long as they support your belief systems.
lekatt, can you support any of your fantastic claims with factual cites that are not just more stories from your own website?
I addressed this question when I wrote:
Very interesting test, Bricker. What would stop the police from creating an “in-house psychic” by feeding someone inside tips that they later “varified”, thus creating a source they could misuse later? While this is somewhat possible with tipsters today, if said tipster is brought before the court today it is possible to find out the source of her/his information, whereas the psychic would have the unvarifiable “vision” out.
Same thing that would stop police from inventing an in-house DNA expert to claim matches with some evidence in order to gain probable cause: it wouldn’t stand up under scrutiny.
Remember, my qualification for this scenario was in our alternate universe, where psychic powers are real…
Remember that the Daubert standard requires that the field, technique, or method has been:
[ul]
[li]sufficiently tested[/li][li]subjected to peer review and publication[/li][li]determined to be accurate[/li][li]generally accepted[/li][/ul]
So in this alternate universe, however psychic powers manifest themselves, they have some indicia of reliability and repeatability. I have no idea how the mechanics of that might work, and it’s not consistent with any fictional treatment of psychic powers I’ve ever seen.
Thank you.