Don’t need an answer fast just saw Snatch again and the thought occured to me. It’s a fairly common Hollywood trope, protagonist gets mixed up in a murder plot (or twelve) and ends up with an (obviously murdered) body in their trunk when the cops pull them over.
Assuming no one speaks to the cops, and there is no physical evidence connecting the guy driving the car to the actual murder (other than, you know, the body), the driver has no motive to murder he victim (there’s not even anything linking him to the victim), and the actual circumstances of the murder (murder scene, weapon, actual murderer) never come to light. What is the driver going to prison for? Presumably prosecution for actual murder would not be possible, in theory at least? Could accessory after the fact be implied from the facts?
That is just how Jack* (Tom Waits) got caught in Down by Law, if I remember correctly. He ended up in jail, but that was not British jurisdiction. He was framed, but he escaped.
*or was it Zack?
At least in the USA there are/were laws against mistreating a corpse. And chauffeuring them from state to state in the trunk of a Chevy probably qualifies.
Yeah this is used in US police procedurals (and possibly IRL) as the last resort when they can’t find enough evidence to pin something more serious on an obvious (in the eyes of the cops) murderer
The Lincoln Lawyer was charged with murder after the murdered body of a former client of his (who owed him money) was found in his trunk.
One time I was driving with a couple of human brains in jars in the trunk. It might’ve been dicey if I’d been stopped and the cops demanded to have a look back there.
I think I would’ve been able to talk my way out of it, though.
They were from autopsies I’d performed. I don’t remember why they had to be transported. I’m reasonably sure that neither of the brains’ original owners was named “Abby”.
It’s been too long since I saw Snatch, but having a dead body discovered in your trunk is going to be an “interesting” starting point for an education in the legal system.
Having no particular legal education, I’m guessing that you could be arrested on suspion of murder
They have similar laws in Japan. We also have a certificate we have to keep with our son’s cremated remains.
There’d be an awful lot of questioning. AFAIK there are laws in England and Wales against “failure to report a death” and “improper disposal of a body”, and I assume Scotland and N.Ireland have similar laws. But for a charge you’d have to prove they knew there was a body there, surely? So it’s a matter of investigating any possible connections with the deceased, and no doubt thorough house searches and the like.
Although “motive, means, and opportunity” are often cited as essentially elements of the theory of the crime (especially in fiction), there is no requirement to establish a motive or demonstrate that the defendant in a murder trial held such motive in the case of the prosecution. Means (the ability to commit the crime) and opportunity are sufficient to establish that the defendant could have committed the criminal act, and the evidence and testimony are supposed to demonstrate that they did so beyond a “reasonable doubt” to a jury (or the judge in a bench trial).
Motive can be an argument for including evidence or testimony, particularly toward the defendants state of mind, and can also be used by the defense counsel to argue that someone else had reason to commit said crime in order to introduce doubt on the prosecution’s case. But if the defendant is caught on video shooting the victim in the head, the pistol is recovered with the defendants’ fingerprints and DNA on it, and eyewitnesses can tie him to the pistol and the proximity of the shooting such that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant is actually the person in the video firing the gun, it does not matter whether there is an established motive for the killing or not; the defendant is almost certainly going to be convicted.
True but in these circumstances it seems like it would make a difference. Someone caught with a random strangers body in your car seems less likely get convicted for murder than someone caught with the body of their estranged wife who’s been talking them to the cleaners with alimony.
If you don’t have a good explanation for what a “random strangers body in your car” came from, you are definitely going to be a ‘person of interest’ in any investigation, and don’t put it past an ambitious prosecutor to manufacture a thesis of the crime and motivation out of rumors and innuendo. Have an jilted ex-wife, former business partner, jealous sibling, or troublesome friend looking to get some CI cred to help make his legal troubles disappear by spinning out a tall tale of how you knew someone that looked like the deceased and spoke ill of them?
As a random, potential juror, I’m not going to give the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know there was a body in your trunk, not without something more.
Though for all I know there could be a body in my pickup bed, under the hard shell cover, at any given time, because I don’t check every time I drive. So maybe I should be more accepting that you just didn’t know? Maybe.
Yeah but in the hypothetical where the investigation finds nothing and everyone keeps schtum (IRL pretty unlikely, if they have a suspect caught with the body, it’s not going to take much evidence linking to the murder to convince a jury), then what happens?
Probably not murder charges? But what about accessory after the fact? Or would it just be some minor stuff like desecration of a corpse?
Yep, and as the old line goes, “you got some splainin’ to do” when the police discover you and your dead passenger. If you have a dead body, you probably touched it to move or store it, so your DNA is on it. Good luck avoiding a murder charge.
just saw Snatch again and the thought occured to me. It’s a fairly common Hollywood trope, protagonist gets mixed up in a murder plot (or twelve) and ends up with an (obviously murdered) body in their trunk when the cops pull them over.
