UK TV is currently showing ‘The Verdict’ in which a group of celebrities are filmed listening to a staged trial, then debating and giving their verdict.
It’s pretty well-done, with real lawyers and a real judge.
The group dynamics of the jury are pretty interesting too.
Anyway perhaps there’ll be a thread on the program itself, but it gave me an idea.
I post a summary of the evidence from a totally fictitious trial and you are invited to reply.
If you’re in law or law enforcement, feel free to make a professional comment. (Assume it takes place in a jurisdiction you are familar with.)
All of you are welcome to vote guilty or not guilty.
Here is the evidence presented at the trial.
(N.B. The defendants used their legal right not to take the stand, and were impassive throughout the proceedings, so you have nothing to judge their credibility by.)
The defendants, Mr. and Mrs. X are accused of burglary at 1 Any Street, Any Town.
They were the former owners of that property before they sold it to Miss A.
Two days after Miss. A moved in, property totalling £4,000 ($8,000) was stolen from her house. This was cash, jewellery, video, computer, DVDs. In the police’s opinion, it would all be easy to sell.
Miss. A went to the Library one evening, taking one hour in all, and the theft took place at that time.
The house was examined by police and no sign of forced entry was found. There were locks on all doors and windows. All were locked when Miss A. left for the Library and also when she returned (discovering the theft).
The fingerprints of both Mr. and Mrs. X were found in the house, but the defence stated that since they had both recently lived there, this was no evidence of guilt.
The prosecution claimed that Mr. and Mrs. X had made copies of the house keys before selling the property and used these to both enter and leave, locking up when they left.
Mr. and Mrs. X have no alibi for the time in question.
When first questioned by police, they said they were at home together. However police then interviewed a neighbour, who said she had seen Mr. and Mrs. X going out.
Mr. and Mrs. X then stated at a subsequent police interview that they had gone out for a drive and that they had mixed up the days.
Mr. X works for a local builder. Mrs. X does not have a job.
Recently Mrs. X bought a secondhand car for £5,000 ($10,000). Although Mr. X’s wages and bank account do not show where this money came from, Mr. X claims he won it gambling.
It seems that the evidence is all circumstantial. If the stolen goods had been recovered at Mr. and Mrs. X’s house, that would be one thing. I’d have to assume that the police executed a search warrant on the X household and didn’t turn up anything.
Not enough evidence to convict. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Hmm . . . based only on that information, I would probably have to vote “not guilty.” It’s all completely circumstantial.
My reasons:
Does the average couple know where to find a fence? If they had just taken the items down to the local pawn shop, they would have been easily recovered because of serial numbers on the electronics. Would they be able to fence all the items? Would Mrs. X have stolen the necklace because she liked it and decided to keep it?
There is no indication from the evidence that fingerprints were found in any area they shouldn’t have been. If there were no prints on Miss A’s personal items that weren’t stolen (say, inside her jewelery box), then there’s no reason to believe a print on the lightswitch proves anything.
There’s no way of knowing for certain that Miss A didn’t leave a door unlocked by accident. Even if it has automatic locks, the door could have not shut properly.
The fact that the Xes didn’t have an alabai proves nothing. I doubt if my husband and I could prove where we were between the hours or eight and nine last night, and our nosy neighbor is also scatterbrained and might confuse the times when she saw us leave.
In my mind, there’s plenty of room for reasonable doubt and not enough evidence to say for certain.
The burden of proof has not been met. They might have done it but the prosecution has not proved it beyond a reasonable doubt (or even a preponderance, IMO). I’d vote Not Guilty, even though I might think there was a chance they had done it. A chance isn’t enough.
I was going to state that the police did indeed get a warrant and found nothing. Then I thought that perhaps nobody would mention that at the trial. (The defence say the items were never there; the prosecution that the items have been sold for cash).
I don’t think this reaches the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for me. I wouldn’t convict. Not guilty.
Also, it strikes me as somewhat odd (thought not impossible, I admit) that after only two days, the X couple would have had enough time to monitor Miss A’s activities well enough to pull off such a job with her only having been gone an hour. It sounds very much like a professional job to me, particularly adding in Lissa’s excellent point about having the ability to find an outlet for the stolen goods.
The OP doesn’t specifically mention whether either of the Xs have a criminal record, but regardless, I’m unconvinced.
handling stolen goods (as an adult)
I assume that this would not be allowed in evidence.
The fingerprints were not found anywhere incriminating (good point!)
The doors were locked when Miss A. returned. (This is confirmed by a friend she met at the Library, who returned with her.)
The nosy neighbour of Mr. and Mrs. X used a closed circuit video camera to record the departure. (There is an ongoing dispute over boundary lines and minor property damage.)
It’s a good point about the burglar knowing Miss A. would be gone.
Perhaps I should have added that Miss A. always visits the library at that time and that, during the house sale, Mr. and Mrs. X would have learnt this (since Miss. A mentioned it in making appointments to view).
The defense sure would. “Officer, you executed a warrant for their premises, did you not? Searched it from top to bottom? Didn’t find one thing, did you?” The prosecution would argu that that’s because they’d already sold the stuff, but no reason not to get it into evidence anyway.
In the TV program I mentioned (‘The Verdict’), one suspect simply denied everything in a police interview.
The defence lawyer asked the police witness “Did the accused answer every question you put to him?”
Answer “Yes.”
The defence lawyer said “Thank you” and sat down.
Sometimes when you don’t have much, you have to end on a high note on a minor point.
“Officer, you stated you live in Pittsburgh, correct?”
“Yes, I did.”
“I thought as much! Pass the witness!”
Given the facts that you’ve given so far, I’d probably have to acquit. If I were defense counsel, I’d establish through the police officer all the different methods of entering a house without a key, and argue in close that the burglar was either the X’s, or any one of the five hundred locksmiths in the phone book, or any one of the thousands of people in the world who knew how to bump a lock.
These X’s. They get drunk… oh, they’re real big drinkers, all of 'em - you know that - and bang: someone’s house is robbed. Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s the way they are! By nature! You know what I mean? VIOLENT!
Where’re you going?
Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us!
Look, they’re lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don’t care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too. Look, I’m the first one to say that.
I’ve known a couple who were OK, but that’s the exception, y’know what I mean?
Most of ‘em, it’s like they have no feelings! They can do anything! What’s goin’ on here? I’m trying to tell you… you’re makin’ a big mistake, you people! They’re liars!! I know it. I know all about them! Listen to me! They’re no good! There’s not a one of 'em who is any good! I mean, what’s happening in here? I’m speaking my piece, and you…
Listen to me. We’re… These people on trial here… their type, well, don’t you know about them? There’s a, there’s a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re wild. Listen to me. Listen.
)
:eek: )