| Criminal defenses |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Insanity · Immunity · Mental disorder Diminished responsibility Intoxication · Infancy Automatism · Alibi Consent · Mistake Duress · Necessity Provocation Self defense False confession · Entrapment |
| See also Criminal law and procedure |
| Other common law areas |
| Criminal · Contract · Tort Property wills · Trusts and estates Evidence |
| Portals |
| Law · Criminal justice |
False evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict in a court case. Also, misleading by suppressing evidence can be used to sway a verdict; however, in some cases, suppressed evidence is excluded because it was found hidden or locked away in areas the accused could not be proven to know. In Britain, falsifying evidence to convict the guilty is known as 'Noble Cause Corruption'. Some evidence is forged because the person doing the forensic work finds it easier to fabricate evidence than to perform the actual work involved. The planting of a gun at a crime scene would be used by the police to justify shooting the victim in self-defense, and avoid possible prosecution for manslaughter. The fact that the police/prosecution, (one of the parties with a vested interest in a trial), effectively controls the supply of most or all of the evidence, is a fundamental problem of the adversarial trial system. However, the accused might have falsified some evidence, especially if not arrested immediately, or by having other access to a crime scene and related areas. Falsified evidence could be created by either the police/prosecution or the defendant(s), or by someone sympathetic to their cause.
Contents |
In some criminal cases, a person will be identified as a "person of interest" for a few days before arrest, allowing time to reveal suspicious actions (such as in recorded phone calls), or to attempt to falsify evidence before their arrest. A type of falsified evidence, used to acquit, would be faked sales receipts which indicated activities (with the accused) had occurred elsewhere during the time of the crime.
In June 1970 A Pukekawa, Lower Waikato, couple were killed and their bodies dumped in the Waikato River. Arthur Allan Thomas, a local farmer, was twice convicted of their murders but following massive publicity was later given a Royal Pardon.
Two bullet cases presented by senior policemen Hutton and Johnston were crucial evidence for the conviction. In 1980, after Thomas' pardon a Royal commission into the convictions concluded "Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston planted the shellcase, exhibit 350 in the Crewe garden, and that they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas's rifle had been used for the killings."[1]
In the 2005 child molestation case again Michael Jackson, District Attorney of Santa Barbara County at the time, Thomas W. Sneddon Jr. has been accused of falsifying evidence during the trial before the grand jury. The accuser, Gavin Arvizo, accused Michael Jackson of showing him "girlie" magazines, leading to acts of molestation, masturbation and sexually lewd acts. However, the magazines had not even been published during his stay at Neverland, the place where the alleged crimes took place.
During the testimony in the court, Sneddon handed it to Arvizo, who held the magazine in his hands without any gloves, clearly manipulating the evidence, raising suspicion in the grand jury. After the touching had occurred, Sneddon submitted this copy of the magazine to the forensic lab to make sure whether or not Arvizo had touched the magazine previously when the malicious acts took place. However, the magazine had not been published at all during Gavin's stay at Neverland. The boy had never even been there to see the magazines, according to the accusation. It was published after the Arvizos had left Neverland. This was one of the reasons Jackson was found "not guilty" of any malicious act of child molestation. Jackson was acquitted of all charges. No particular action has been taken against Sneddon.
In the New York State Police Troop C scandal of 1993, Craig D. Harvey a New York State Police trooper was charged with fabricating evidence. Harvey admitted he and another trooper lifted fingerprints from items the suspect, John Spencer, touched while in Troop C headquarters during booking. He attached the fingerprints to evidence cards and later claimed that he had pulled the fingerprints from the scene of the murder. The forged evidence was used during trial and John Spencer was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison.[2]
After the truth came out, it was discovered that they had been falsifying evidence in cases for many years. At least three officers were convicted. Every case the department had been involved in had to be reinvestigated.
In the 1990s, the fingerprint, DNA, and explosive units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory had written reports confirming local police department theories without actually performing the work.
Such laws and regulatory procedures stipulating the conditions under which evidence can be handled and manipulated fall under a body of due process statues called chain of evidence rules. It is crucial for law enforcement agencies to scrupulously collect, handle and transfer evidence in order to avoid its falsification. In most jurisdictions, chain of evidence rules require that the transfer of criminal evidence be handled by as few persons as possible. To prevent error or improper tampering, chain of evidence rules also stipulate that those authorized to experiment with collected evidence document the nature, time, date and duration of their handling.