A police officer finds new evidence before a retrial, who should they give it to? Scene: Someone committed a murder. Lots of false evidence led an innocent man to be found guilty at his last jury trial. But, a few minutes before starting the new trial, a police officer finds true evidence proving who the real murderer is. Now to whom should this police officer give this evidence? To the prosecution who is dying to prove an innocent man guilty? Or to the defendant who is dying to prove himself not guilty?
The Legal Answer: An officer's job is to turn over all evidence to the State's attorney and testify at trial truthfully. It is the State's attorney's job to turn over all evidence in discovery to the defense; to only prosecute people they believe are guilty or likely guilty; and to remedy clear and convincing false prosecutions as outlined in ABA rule 3.8 which is echoed in many state laws. Rule 3.8: The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;... ...(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;... ..(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction. If this new exonerating evidence is turned over to the prosecutor they would be required to submit it to the defense and the trial would likely be postponed for both sides to evaluate the new evidence. If they suppress the evidence it would be grounds for appeal and disbarment of the prosecuting attorney. It is not the officer's job to direct the trial, just supply evidence that supports the truth. But it also wouldn't help if the State's own witness suddenly started offering testimony contrary to supporting guilt and in light of new evidence the prosecution may reevaluate to not have this happen. The Ethical Answer: Kind of sticky going into ethics and the exact right response to this situation, but it sounds like the answer you want. Assuming an ethical prosecutor the this would be the same as the legal answer. If this is not the case and the officer reasonably believes evidence will be suppressed, they could turn over evidence to both parties directly or to the prosecution and make the defense aware that he submitted evidence. He could also notify the state bar association of the suppression by the prosecution should that happen. Of course these actions may be at peril to their job as an officer despite whistle blower protections, but if ethics were easy, people wouldn't have to talk about them so much.
Double jeopardy applies to the same facts, not to the same sorts of crimes. Say if you are tried and acquitted of murder of person A, that won't later save you from being tried for murder of person B. Same applies to your question: if the documents/testimony on the second occasion are different from the first occasion, there is no protection. If they are the same, there is.
The answer provided by Dale M is half right, but there are a few things that I think are wrong. Firstly, the actual reality of the situation doesn't matter. What matters is that you act in a reasonable manner, performing assessments of the situation as a reasonable person would do. If you misread the situation, and end up killing a police officer that was acting in a lawful manner, it doesn't necessarily mean you were acting unlawfully yourself. Because police officers are generally exposed to situations where they would be forced to use their firearm, that obviously would impact how a reasonable person would see the situation, but the test for reasonableness would not go out the window. In addition, even if you were found to not be acting in a reasonable manner, there is certainly a question if you would be found guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter rather than murder. It's possible the self-defence claim would be upheld as an imperfect defence.
Offering up evidence that another person committed a crime is a standard and accepted, although rare, criminal defense strategy. It is mostly not used very much because most crimes for which defendants are charged were not committed by somebody else, and because most innocent defendants lack the investigative and economic resources to identify enough information about another potential suspect to present such a case credibly. The defense would have to articulate to the judge that the reason for offering up evidence about Z is to support Y's theory of the case that Z and not Y committed the crime, in order to overcome a relevance objection. But, the defendant had wide latitude to do so in order to create a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. In most circumstances, it would be a reversible abuse of discretion to prevent the defendant from introducing evidence to support a theory of this kind. A similar strategy, for example, was recently used in a preliminary hearing in a case involving a high profile murder in Colorado where a man stands accused to murdering his wife (the man is Barry Morphew) has developed a theory that his wife was murdered by someone else based in part, for example, on the evidence of unidentified DNA near the murder scene allegedly associated with previous crimes in DNA databases.
There are two related questions: What factors determine how police will exercise their investigative discretion? How will charging decisions be made? Investigative Discretion I cannot enumerate the multitude of factors that inform the police's investigative discretion, but this guide from the College of Policing is a good resource. At the initial stage, factors include: scene management, risk management, record keeping, community impact. The priorities are to: preserve life, preserve scenes, secure evidence, identify victims, and identify suspects. The initial investigation is aimed at dealing with the immediate needs of victims and witnesses and gathering enough information to allow an investigative evaluation. Whether the investigation goes further depends on the circumstances of the crime, the material gathered so far, and resource requirements. Eventually, the police will coordinate with Crown Prosecution Service to identify further investigative needs of the prosecution, if a charge has been laid or is being considered. More specific steps are discussed here. Importantly: Each force sets their own crime investigation standards, which are disseminated to staff. They should be interdependent with the national intelligence model, to ensure that they support the deployment of appropriate resources to areas of identified priority at the correct time. Police officers exercise a high level of discretion when dealing with situations on the street. This is not directly overseen by sergeants and inspectors, and this makes the supervision of frontline officers challenging. Crime investigation standards are, therefore, useful to monitor and measure the performance of individual investigators and the quality of the investigation. Prosecutorial Discretion Here are two resources describing the charging decision: College of Policing, Charging and case preparation Crown Prosecution Service, Charging (The Director's Guidance) The default is that in order to charge, prosecutors must be satified that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that there are no public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh factors in favour of prosecution. But, there are a limited range of cases in which the seriousness or circumstances of a case justify making an immediate charging decision, even though there is insufficient evidence to meet the &quot;realistic prospect of conviction&quot; standard. In order to charge in these special circumstances, five conditions must be met. I will not describe these in detail, but there must reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed the offence (this is a lower standard than a &quot;realistic prospect of conviction&quot;), there must be further evidence forthcoming, the seriousness of the case justifies making an immediate decision, there are substantial grounds to object to bail, and it is in the public interest to charge. Further, there is a lot of discretion for police or prosecutors to proceed with an out-of-court disposal where it is in the public interest and is an appropriate response.
Yes. The jurisdiction I am familiar with is England and Wales. Conviction requires evidence (witness testimony is evidence) which proves the case "beyond reasonable doubt". It is open to the jury to find the witness so convincing that they find that they are sure the defendant committed the crime. In general of course, prosecutors prefer to have some supporting evidence (either additional witnesses, or circumstantial evidence - like DNA.)
Police officers can lie to you He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this. You said no. You’re allowed to do this. He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies. You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search. He legally searched, confirmed your admission and booked you. Seems legit to me.
There are some complexities here, and several possibilities. First of all, it seems from the question that: There were not any &quot;exigent circumstances&quot; or any other special situation which would justify making a search without a warrant (there are several circumstances which can justify a warrantless search, but none are mentioned in the question). The police had no probable cause, indeed not even any reasonable suspicion. Thus the police had no valid reason even to request a warrant, and if they had asked for one, they should have been refused. No resident of the house consented to any search at any point. The police had no honest belief that they were acting lawfully. They knew, or any reasonable police officer should have known, that they were acting unlawfully. Now, let us consider some of the possibilities left open by the question. For purposes of discussion, let us assume that the house was owned by Bob and Carol, and no one else lived in it. There are several possibilities. Case One: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. Bob is charged, and Bob's lawyer Joan makes a timely motion to suppress the evidence. The judge should hold a suppression hearing, and under these conditions, should suppress the evidence. The trial will go forward without it, or be dismissed if there is not enough other evidence to proceed. Case Two: Much like Case One, but another group of police officers had good reason to suspect Bob, and was already in the process of preparing a request for a warrant, supported by valid probable cause. Had the first group not searched the house unlawfully, the second group would have obtained a valid warrant and found the evidence under its authority. In this situation, known as inevitable discovery the evidence would be admitted, and the unlawful search will not matter. Case Three: The evidence implicates Fred, not Bob or Carol. Fred did not live in the house, but had asked Carol to store some boxes for him. Carol did not know what was in them. Fred has no privacy rights to the house. Bob or Carol could have lawfully consented to a search, and Fred would have no grounds to object. Fred has no grounds to suppress the evidence, as Fred's rights were not violated, and Fred cannot assert Bob or Carol's rights. A trial of Fred would proceed as if the search had been lawful. Bob and Carol may have grounds for a Section 1983 lawsuit against the police for violation of their rights, but that will not help Fred. Case Four: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. The police arrest Bob, and tell him that they have a case against him, and that if he does not confess, they will also arrest Carol as an accomplice. (They lie, but Bob believes them.) Bob pleads guilty. The unlawful search is never raised, and Bob is sentenced as if it had been lawful. Case Five: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. Bob's lawyer Joan fails to request a suppression hearing, or to object at trial to the evidence from the unlawful search. Or more likely, instead of going to trial, Bob's lawyer arranges a plea bargain without raising the issue of the search. Bob is convicted as if the search had been lawful. Bob may have a valid appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, as Joan should have known better. Case Six: The evidence appears to implicate Bob. But the police have other evidence as well. Bob's lawyer raises the issue of the unlawful search. However, the prosecutor convinces Bob's lawyer Joan that they can probably convict Bob even without the evidence from the search. Joan arranges a plea bargain, and Bob accepts it. Bob will be sentenced under the plea deal, and nothing will be done about the unlawful search, except that Bob may get a somewhat better deal because the authorities do not want it exposed in court. Note that only in cases One and Five will a possibly guilty person possibly go free because of the unlawful search, and it is by no means certain even there. It is also possible that a judge will wrongly admit the evidence in a Case One situation. This is likely to be corrected on appeal, with the unlawfulness as blatant as the question assumes. In a case where the unlawfulness is more marginal, this is less sure.