John Doe

Last updated

Four headstones marking the single grave of four unknown people in the Pima County Cemetery, Tucson, Arizona. They are called "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" followed by a number sign (#) and a number. In the same cemetery, the murdered Deanna Criswell was called "Jane Doe 19" for 27 years until she was genetically identified in 2015 by her relatives with help from the FBI and The Doe Network. John and Jane Doe Headstones.jpg
Four headstones marking the single grave of four unknown people in the Pima County Cemetery, Tucson, Arizona. They are called "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" followed by a number sign (#) and a number. In the same cemetery, the murdered Deanna Criswell was called "Jane Doe 19" for 27 years until she was genetically identified in 2015 by her relatives with help from the FBI and The Doe Network.

John Doe (male) and Jane Doe (female) are multiple-use placeholder names that are used in the British and US-American legal system and aside generally in the United Kingdom and the United States when the true name of a person is unknown or is being intentionally concealed. [1] [2] [3] In the context of law enforcement in the United States, such names are often used to refer to a corpse whose identity is unknown or cannot be confirmed. These names are also often used to refer to a hypothetical "everyman" in other contexts, like John Q. Public or "Joe Public". There are many variants to the above names, including John (or Richard)/Jane Roe, John/Jane Smith, John/Jane Bloggs, and Johnie/Janie Doe or just Baby Doe for children. A. N. Other is also a placeholder name, mainly used in the United Kingdom — which is gender neutral — along side Joe / Jo Bloggs and the now occasional use of the "John" and "Jane Doe" names.

Contents

In criminal investigation

In other English-speaking countries, unique placeholder names, numbers or codenames have become more often used in the context of police investigations. This has included the United Kingdom, where usage of "John Doe" originated during the Middle Ages. However, the legal term John Doe injunction or John Doe order [4] has survived in English law and other legal systems influenced by it. Other names, such as "Joe Bloggs" or "John Smith", have sometimes been informally used as placeholders for an every-man in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand; however such names are seldom used in legal or police circles in the same sense as John Doe.

Well-known legal cases named after placeholders include:

History

Under the legal terminology of Ancient Rome, the names " Numerius Negidius " and "Aulus Agerius" were used in relation to hypothetical defendants and plaintiffs. [7] The names "John Doe" (or "John Do") and "Richard Roe" (along with "John Roe") were regularly invoked in English legal instruments to satisfy technical requirements governing standing and jurisdiction, beginning perhaps as early as the reign of England's King Edward III (1327–1377). [8] Though the rationale behind the choices of Doe and Roe is unknown, there are many suggested folk etymologies. [9] Other fictitious names for a person involved in litigation in medieval English law were "John Noakes" (or "Nokes") and "John-a-Stiles" (or "John Stiles"). [10] The Oxford English Dictionary states that John Doe is "the name given to the fictitious lessee of the plaintiff, in the (now obsolete in the UK) mixed action of ejectment, the fictitious defendant being called Richard Roe". [9]

This usage is mocked in the 1834 English song "John Doe and Richard Roe":

Two giants live in Britain's land,
John Doe and Richard Roe,
Who always travel hand in hand,
John Doe and Richard Roe.
Their fee-faw-fum's an ancient plan
To smell the purse of an Englishman,
And, 'ecod, they'll suck it all they can,
John Doe and Richard Roe ... [11]

This particular use became obsolete in the UK in 1852:

As is well known, the device of involving real people as notional lessees and ejectors was used to enable freeholders to sue the real ejectors. These were then replaced by the fictional characters John Doe and Richard Roe. Eventually the medieval remedies were (mostly) abolished by the Real Property Limitation Act of 1833; the fictional characters of John Doe and Richard Roe by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852; and the forms of action themselves by the Judicature Acts 1873–75."
Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs v Meier and others (2009). [12]

In the UK, usage of "John Doe" survives mainly in the form of John Doe injunction or John Doe order (see above).

8.02 If an unknown person has possession of the confidential personal information and is threatening to disclose it, a 'John Doe' injunction may be sought against that person. The first time this form of injunction was used since 1852 in the United Kingdom was in 2005 when lawyers acting for JK Rowling and her publishers obtained an interim order against an unidentified person who had offered to sell chapters of a stolen copy of an unpublished Harry Potter novel to the media. [13]

Unlike the United States, the name "John Doe" does not actually appear in the formal name of the case, for example: X & Y v Persons Unknown [2007] HRLR 4. [14] Well-known cases of unidentified decedents include "Caledonia Jane Doe" (1979), "Princess Doe" (1982) and "Walker County Jane Doe" (1980), all of whom have been identified. In 1997, New York City police discovered a decapitated body and were not able to find the killer. The body was named Peaches (murder victim) and also Jane Doe 3. The baby victim in a 2001 murder case in Kansas City, Missouri, was referred to as Precious Doe. [15]

In 2009, the New York Times reported the difficulties and unwanted attention experienced by a man actually named John Doe, who had often been suspected of using a pseudonym. He had been questioned repeatedly by airport security staff. Another man named John Doe was often suspected of being an incognito celebrity. [16]

Other variants

In cases where a large number of unidentified individuals are mentioned, numbers may be appended, such as "Doe #2" or "Doe II". Operation Delego (2009), which targeted an international child sexual abuse ring, cited 21 numbered "John Does", as well as other people known by the surnames "Doe", "Roe", "Hoe" and "Poe". "John Stiles", "Richard Miles" have been used for the third and fourth participants in an action. "Mary Major" has been used in some federal cases in the US. [17] "James Doe" and "Judy Doe" are among other common variants.

Less often, other surnames ending in -oe have been used when more than two unknown or unidentified persons are named in U.S. court proceedings, e.g.,

In Massachusetts, "Mary Moe" is used to refer to pregnant women under the age of 18 petitioning the Superior Court for a judicial bypass exception to the parental consent requirement for abortion. [21] "Mary Moe" is also used to refer to such cases generally, i.e. "Mary Moe cases". Sometimes "Mary Doe" may be used for the individuals. Parallels in other countries include:

Famous court cases

Currently there are no court rules about pseudonym use. The rules of civil procedure ... are silent on the matter ... Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) reads, '... In the complaint, the title of the action shall include the names of all the parties ...' The rule contains no guidance as to what parties should do to keep their names confidential. [30]

Prior to ... 1969, only one Supreme Court case, three court of appeals' decisions, and one district court decision in the previous quarter-century featured an anonymous individual as the sole or lead plaintiff. Between 1969 and 22 January 1973, the date when the Supreme Court decided Roe and Doe, there were twenty-one district court and two court of appeals decisions featuring anonymous plaintiffs. [31]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law as practiced in countries that follow the English models, a pleading is a formal written statement of one party's claims or defenses in response to another party's complaint(s) in a civil action. The parties' pleadings in a case define the issues to be adjudicated in the action.

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and it sparked an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.

A legal fiction is a construct used in the law where a thing is taken to be true, which is not in fact true, in order to achieve an outcome. Legal fictions can be employed by the courts or found in legislation.

Numerius Negidius is a name used in Roman jurisprudence to refer to the defendant in a hypothetical lawsuit. It based on a play on words: Numerius is a Roman praenomen, or forename, resembling the verb numero, "I pay"; while Negidius has the form of a gentile name formed from the verb nego, "I refuse". Thus, Numerius Negidius is a personal name that can also be interpreted to mean "he who refuses to pay".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Placeholder name</span> Name substituted for an unknown name

Placeholder names are intentionally overly generic and ambiguous terms referring to things, places, or people, the names of which or of whom do not actually exist; are temporarily forgotten, or are unimportant; or in order to avoid stigmatization, or because they are unknowable or unpredictable given the context of their discussion; or to deliberately expunge direct use of the name.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

A fictitious defendant is a person that cannot be identified by the plaintiff before a lawsuit is commenced. Commonly this person is identified as "John Doe" or "Jane Doe".

Ejectment is a common law term for civil action to recover the possession of or title to land. It replaced the old real actions and the various possessory assizes where boundary disputes often featured. Though still used in some places, the term is now obsolete in many common law jurisdictions, in which possession and title are sued by the actions of eviction and quiet title, respectively.

Legal proceeding is an activity that seeks to invoke the power of a tribunal in order to enforce a law. Although the term may be defined more broadly or more narrowly as circumstances require, it has been noted that "[t]he term legal proceedings includes proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority, and an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal". Legal proceedings are generally characterized by an orderly process in which participants or their representatives are able to present evidence in support of their claims, and to argue in favor of particular interpretations of the law, after which a judge, jury, or other trier of fact makes a determination of the factual and legal issues.

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against a placeholder defendant, using the name John Doe or Jane Doe. A plaintiff may then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name and amend the complaint to name the Doe defendant. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

<i>Doe v. Cahill</i>

Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, is a significant case in the realm of anonymous internet speech and the First Amendment. While similar issues had been tackled involving criticism of a publicly traded company, the case marks the first time the Delaware Supreme Court addressed the issue of anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."

Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group, was a Chicago-based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement. However, it was later characterized by the United States District Court for Central California in a May 2013 ruling as a "porno-trolling collective" whose business model "relie[d] on deception", and which resembled most closely a conspiracy and racketeering enterprise, referring in the judgment to RICO, the U.S. Federal anti-racketeering law. The firm ostensibly dissolved itself in July 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling although onlookers described Alpha Law Firm LLC as its apparent replacement. In 2014, the ABA Journal described the "Prenda Law saga" as having entered "legal folklore".

<i>Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495</i>

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495, Civil Action No. 11-1741 (JDB/JMF), was a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case in which the court held that anonymous users of the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent could not remain anonymous after charges of copyright infringement were brought against them. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the identities of defendants were publicly exposed.

<i>Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia</i>

Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489 F.3d 376, is a unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in which the Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was remanded to the District Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)</span>

The Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals, officially the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, is the 27th presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. The intent was to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, on the basis that they would be a financial burden due to sex reassignment procedures and associated costs. Federal courts delayed the implementation of this rule by issuing four injunctions. On January 22, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect.

<i>Doe v. Trump</i> (2017) Lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019

Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017, and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019.

<i>Stockman v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on September 5, 2017

Stockman v. Trump (5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KKx) is an old lawsuit filed on September 5, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, like the similar prior suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Karnoski v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of four named and three anonymous transgender plaintiffs by Equality California (EQCA). Two other major LGBT-rights organizations which had filed Jane Doe v. Trump, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, joined the suit as co-counsels in October 2017.

<i>Karnoski v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sandra Cano (Mary Doe)</span> Plaintiff in the 1973 United States Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton

Sandra Cano, better known by the legal pseudonym "Mary Doe," was the plaintiff in the lawsuit case Doe v. Bolton (1970), the companion case to Roe v. Wade (1973) which legalized abortion in the United States. Cano held anti-abortion views and claimed she had been manipulated by her lawyer, Margie Pitts Hames. She repeatedly attempted to have the decision overturned. She also undertook anti-abortion activism, with Norma Jane McCorvey among others, and filed a Friend of the Court brief seeking to limit partial birth abortions.

References

  1. ↑ "Twitched Indictment" (PDF). Justice.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 March 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  2. ↑ "The People of the State of California v. John Doe" (PDF). Judicial Council of California. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 October 2020. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  3. 1 2 Ireland, Courts Service of. "McKeogh -v- John Doe 1 & ors : Judgments & Determinations : Courts Service of Ireland". www.courts.ie. Archived from the original on 18 October 2017. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  4. ↑ "Obtaining a John Doe order". PressGazette. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  5. ↑ "Deed Poll Office (D·P·O)". Deed Poll Office. Archived from the original on 22 March 2019. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  6. ↑ "Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe I". Justia Dockets & Filings. Archived from the original on 14 March 2015. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
  7. ↑ Onomastics, Names: A. Journal of (1 December 1972). "Note". Names. 20 (4): 297–300. doi: 10.1179/nam.1972.20.4.297 . ISSN   1756-2279. Archived from the original on 31 July 2021. Retrieved 31 July 2021.
  8. ↑ What's in a Name . Merriam-Webster. 1996. ISBN   978-0-87779-613-8.[ page needed ]
  9. 1 2 "Why Are Unidentified People Called John or Jane Doe?". mentalfloss.com. 15 February 2012. Archived from the original on 18 July 2019. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  10. ↑ "World Wide Words – John DoeZ". Worldwidewords.org. Archived from the original on 7 April 2010. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  11. ↑ The Universal Songster: Or, Museum of Mirth: Forming the Most Complete, Extensive, and Valuable Collection of Ancient and Modern Songs in the English Language, with a Copious and Classified Index, Volume 1. London: Jones and Company. 1827. p. 378. Retrieved 18 September 2015.
  12. ↑ "Supreme Court Decided Cases (pdf)" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov.uk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 April 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  13. ↑ "The Law of Professional-Client Confidentiality: Regulating the Disclosure of Confidential Personal Information, Update". Uea.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 7 July 2003.
  14. ↑ "Uncorrected Evidence 75". Publications.parliament.uk. 18 February 2009. Archived from the original on 14 October 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  15. ↑ Goldblatt, Jeff (8 August 2002). "Slain Mystery Girl Brings Community Together". FOX News Network. Archived from the original on 8 April 2008. Retrieved 30 June 2006.
  16. ↑ Alison Leigh Cowan (29 July 2009). "Meet John Doe. No, really!". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 October 2011. Retrieved 5 August 2009.
  17. ↑ Quinion M (15 March 2003). "John Doe". World Wide Words. Archived from the original on 7 April 2010. Retrieved 26 November 2008.
  18. ↑ "Poe v. Snyder". www.leagle.com. Archived from the original on 24 February 2014. Retrieved 20 February 2014.
  19. ↑ "Friedman v. Ferguson". Law.justia.com. Archived from the original on 2 January 2014. Retrieved 17 February 2012.
  20. ↑ Note that the plaintiff-appellant Friedman represented himself, so his use of fictitious names may not reflect legal custom.
  21. ↑ "Superior Court Standing Order 5-81: Uniform Procedures Regarding Petitions for Abortion Authorization under G.L. c. 112, § 12". Massachusetts Superior Court. 1 October 1988. Archived from the original on 19 December 2017. Retrieved 18 December 2017.
  22. ↑ Balaji, R (29 March 2012). "'Kolaveri' against piracy". The Hindu Business Line. Archived from the original on 2 May 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2012.
  23. ↑ Elhor, Aziz (17 February 2012). "حقائق صادمة عن أطفال يحملون اسم «X بن X»" [Facts about children named “X Ben X”]. al-Massae. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  24. ↑ "Médecine légale: X Ben X, l'énigme du cadavre anonyme". L'Economiste (in French). 23 September 2016. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  25. ↑ "حملة أمنية تحصي المتشردين و المتسولين لتحديد هوياتهم !" [A security campaign counts the homeless and beggars to determine their identities!]. Rue20 (in Arabic). 8 April 2019. Retrieved 9 October 2023.
  26. ↑ "Who is JANE DOE?". Walnet.org. Archived from the original on 11 November 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  27. ↑ See, for example, Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe, "775 A.2d 756". Archived from the original on 8 September 2009. Retrieved 19 March 2009. (N.J. App. Div. 2001); Krinsky v. Doe 6, "159 Cal. App. 4th 1154 (pdf)" (PDF). 14 January 2019. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2009. (2008).
  28. ↑ Pahwa, Nikhil (21 July 2011). "Update: Files Sharing Sites Blocked in India Because Reliance BIG Pictures Got A Court Order". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 14 September 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2012.
  29. ↑ "'John Doe Order' for BODYGUARD to curb its piracy". Bollywoodtrade.com. 29 August 2011. Archived from the original on 2 January 2014. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
  30. ↑ Balla, Donald P. "John Doe Is Alive and Well: Designing Pseudonym Use in American Courts" (PDF). Arkansas Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 July 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2014.
  31. ↑ Milani, Adam A. "Doe v. roe: An argument for defendant anonymity when a pseudonymous plaintiff alleges a stigmatizing intentional tort". Lexisnexis.com. Archived from the original on 2 January 2014. Retrieved 18 February 2012.
  32. ↑ "Glamour Women of the Year: Stanford Sexual Assault Case Survivor Emily Doe Speaks Out". Glamour. November 2016. Archived from the original on 2 November 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
  33. ↑ de León, Concepción (4 September 2019). "You Know Emily Doe's Story. Now Learn Her Name". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 6 September 2019. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  34. ↑ Hope, Bradley (12 March 2015). "Was 'John Doe' Manipulating Treasury Futures? New Lawsuit Says Yes". Wall Street Journal.
  35. ↑ Carroll, Rory (3 November 2016). "Woman accusing Trump of raping her at 13 cancels her plan to go public". The Guardian . Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
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.