Consciousness of guilt

Last updated

In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence, [1] and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence. [2] Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt". [3]

Contents

Descriptions and definitions

Consciousness of guilt law and legal definition: [4]

Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendant's actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as "consciousness of guilt". For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to "cover up" his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt.

Criminal defense attorney Stephen G. Rodriguez describes it thus: [5]

Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime.

The New York State Unified Court System discusses false alibis (in the context of "consciousness of guilt") as a form of admissible evidence: [1]

Evidence of post-crime conduct that may in the context of a particular case evince a defendant's consciousness of guilt of the offense with which the defendant is charged is admissible. A consciousness of guilt may, for example, be evinced by a false alibi or explanation for one's actions, intimidation of a witness, destruction or concealment of evidence or flight.

Haim Cohn explains the concept: [6]

First and foremost, there is "guilt" within the meaning of criminal law. On the one hand, guilt is spoken of as denoting the mental element in crime: the guilt of one who committed a criminal act – actus reus – presupposes the criminal mind – mens rea ; or, an actus reus is transformed into guilt by the supervenience of mens rea. Whether the mens rea is intent or wilfulness, or only negligence or recklessness, does not affect the incidence of guilt, but may well raise the question of degree of guilt. On the other hand, "guilt" is the result of a verdict to the effect that the accused is criminally responsible ("finding of guilty"), and it is in this sense that the accused may "plead guilty".

Suspicious actions

La Conscience (by Victor Hugo), illustration by Francois Chifflart (1825-1901) Chifflart - Das Gewissen - 1877.jpeg
La Conscience (by Victor Hugo), illustration by François Chifflart (1825–1901)

When a defendant acts guilty, some of their actions reveal evidence of deceit, a consciousness of guilt, [4] [5] and their guilty state of mind. [7] This may imply that the defendant committed, or intended to commit, a crime. Typical psychological defenses exhibited by guilty suspects include denial, rationalisation, minimisation, and projection of blame onto the victim. [8]

Cautions

A defendant may introduce innocent explanations of conduct that counter accusations of consciousness of guilt, and a "jury should be advised of the limited probative value of 'consciousness of guilt' evidence". [1]

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right against self-incrimination. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Doyle v. Ohio (2013), a defendant's post-arrest silence may not be introduced by the government as evidence of the defendant's guilt, and the prosecution may not comment on the defendant's refusal to testify. The Supreme Court has not explicitly decided whether a defendant's pre-arrest silence may be introduced as substantive evidence of guilt (i.e., may be used in the government's case-in-chief, even if the defendant chooses not to testify). A three-justice plurality of the Court, in Salinas v. Texas (2013), held that such silence was admissible where the defendant did not expressly invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights. [11]

International law

Some commentators have noted that consciousness-of-guilt evidence may be used in international criminal law. [12]

Examples

DOJ attorney Dan E. Stigall uses Raskolnikov, the fictional protagonist of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment , to discuss "consciousness of guilt" and how "such evidence can be used to demonstrate an accused's culpability": [13]

In all literature, there is perhaps no better example of a man wrestling with the knowledge of his own guilt than that of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. Within the struggles of the main character, the reader sees numerous examples of behavior that demonstrate a suspect's consciousness of guilt: disposing of the evidence, giving false exculpatory statements, fleeing the scene, and displaying an unusually nervous demeanor. Modern jurisprudence reveals that such behavior is admissible in contemporary criminal trials for the purpose of establishing guilt, highlighting the importance of acute observation of an accused's actions while demonstrating definitively Dostoyevsky's unique insight into the human condition and the criminal mind.

Shakespearean scholar A. C. Bradley describes Macbeth's "consciousness of guilt" as "stronger in him than the consciousness of failure; and it keeps him in a perpetual agony of restlessness, and forbids him simply to droop and pine. His mind is 'full of scorpions.' He cannot sleep." [14]

In Shakespeare's Hamlet , "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" describes overreactions to accusations as an expression of a consciousness of guilt. [15] [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence. This plea is allowed even if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution, and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

In criminal law, mens rea is the mental state of a defendant who is accused of committing a crime. In common law jurisdictions, most crimes require proof both of mens rea and actus reus before the defendant can be found guilty.

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and regulations along with some standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miscarriage of justice</span> Conviction of a person for a crime that they did not commit

A miscarriage of justice occurs when an unfair outcome occurs in a criminal or civil proceeding, such as the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. Miscarriages are also known as wrongful convictions. Innocent people have sometimes ended up in prison for years before their conviction has eventually been overturned. They may be exonerated if new evidence comes to light or it is determined that the police or prosecutor committed some kind of misconduct at the original trial. In some jurisdictions this leads to the payment of compensation.

Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty or, in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice system of Japan</span>

Within the criminal justice system of Japan, there exist three basic features that characterize its operations. First, the institutions—police, government prosecutors' offices, courts, and correctional organs—maintain close and cooperative relations with each other, consulting frequently on how best to accomplish the shared goals of limiting and controlling crime. Second, citizens are encouraged to assist in maintaining public order, and they participate extensively in crime prevention campaigns, apprehension of suspects, and offender rehabilitation programs. Finally, officials who administer criminal justice are allowed considerable discretion in dealing with offenders.

In the law of criminal evidence, a confession is a statement by a suspect in crime which is adverse to that person. Some secondary authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary, define a confession in more narrow terms, e.g. as "a statement admitting or acknowledging all facts necessary for conviction of a crime," which would be distinct from a mere admission of certain facts that, if true, would still not, by themselves, satisfy all the elements of the offense. The equivalent in civil cases is a statement against interest.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

An alibi is a statement by a person under suspicion in a crime that they were in a different place when the offence was committed. During a police investigation, all suspects are usually asked to provide details of their whereabouts during the relevant time period, which where possible would usually be confirmed by other persons or in other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Guilt (law)</span> State of being responsible for a crime per the states rules

In criminal law, guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense. Legal guilt is entirely externally defined by the state, or more generally a "court of law". Being factually guilty of a criminal offense means that one has committed a violation of criminal law or performed all the elements of the offense set out by a criminal statute. The determination that one has committed that violation is made by an external body after the determination of the facts by a finder of fact or "factfinder" and is, therefore, as definitive as the record-keeping of the body. For instance, in the case of a bench trial, a judge acts as both the court of law and the factfinder, whereas in a jury trial, the jury is the trier of fact and the judge acts only as the trier of law.

A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception. The practice of communicating a lie is called lying; a person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Lies may be employed to serve a variety of instrumental, interpersonal, or psychological functions for the individuals who use them. Generally, the term "lie" carries a negative connotation and, depending on the context, a person who communicates a lie may be subject to social, legal, religious, or criminal sanctions.

References

  1. 1 2 3 New York State Unified Court System. "Relevant Evidence (4.24): "Consciousness of Guilt"" (PDF). Retrieved January 31, 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee. "Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions" (PDF). LexisNexis . Retrieved April 3, 2024.
  3. ↑ Gibson, David R; Fox, Matthew P (May 2, 2021). "Facts into faults: The grammar of guilt in jury deliberations". Discourse Studies . 23 (4). Sage Publishing: 474–496. doi:10.1177/14614456211001605. ISSN   1461-4456.
  4. 1 2 "Consciousness of Guilt Law and Legal Definition". USLegal, Inc. Retrieved April 2, 2024.
  5. 1 2 "Legal Dictionary: Consciousness of Guilt". Stephen G. Rodriguez & Partners. Retrieved April 2, 2024.
  6. ↑ Cohn, Haim H. (1993). "Judicial Cognizance of Guilt-Consciousness". Israel Law Review . 27 (1–2). Cambridge University Press: 59–83. doi:10.1017/s002122370001685x. ISSN   0021-2237.
  7. ↑ Ryan, Tom (December 19, 2019). "Consciousness of guilt evidence". Montgomery County Sentinel . Retrieved April 3, 2024.
  8. ↑ Abby Stein, Prologue to Violence (2006) p. 6
  9. ↑ "Article VIII: Hearsay. Feigning Lack of Memory". Mass.gov. Retrieved April 18, 2024.
  10. ↑ "United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Wayne Barnhart, Defendant-appellant, 889 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir. 1989)". Justia Law. November 27, 1989. Retrieved April 18, 2024.
  11. ↑ Gee, Harvey (Fall 2014). "Salinas v. Texas: Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used Against a Defendant" (PDF). Suffolk University Law Review. 47 (4). Suffolk University Law School . Retrieved April 13, 2024.
  12. ↑ Paulett, Sarah (2007). "In what circumstances can 'consciousness of guilt' be used as evidence in international criminal law?". Case Western Reserve University School of Law . Retrieved April 1, 2024.
  13. ↑ Stigall, Dan E (December 2005). "Prosecuting Raskolnikov: A Literary and Legal Look at 'Consciousness of Guilt' Evidence". The Army Lawyer. Retrieved April 1, 2024.
  14. ↑ Bradley, A.C. (1905). "Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth". Project Gutenberg . p. 360. Retrieved April 1, 2024.
  15. ↑ Hartmann, Margaret (October 15, 2021). "Does Trump Want Me to Think He's Into Golden Showers?". New York . Retrieved December 17, 2023.
  16. ↑ Savage, Dan (April 13, 2018). "The Pee Tape Is Real*". The Stranger . Retrieved December 22, 2023.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.