Murder investigations and the trial verdict
September 24, 2013 12:25 PM Subscribe
If a defendant is found not-guilty following a murder trial do the police re-open the case and continue to search for the true murderer?
I'm interested to know how police handle murder cases with respect to trial verdicts. Let's say for example a husband is suspected of murdering his wife and the police, District Attorney et al have enough evidence to send him to trial. They believe he committed the crime. But a jury disagrees and finds the man not-guilty of the murder, which also means (if the trial system isn't utterly flawed) that the actual murderer remains at large. What do the police do with the case at this point? Will they have already closed it? Would they re-open the case post trial and continue searching for the true person responsible for the crime?
To phrase it another way, will the police now try to help this man find the person who murdered his wife?
I'm interested to know how police handle murder cases with respect to trial verdicts. Let's say for example a husband is suspected of murdering his wife and the police, District Attorney et al have enough evidence to send him to trial. They believe he committed the crime. But a jury disagrees and finds the man not-guilty of the murder, which also means (if the trial system isn't utterly flawed) that the actual murderer remains at large. What do the police do with the case at this point? Will they have already closed it? Would they re-open the case post trial and continue searching for the true person responsible for the crime?
To phrase it another way, will the police now try to help this man find the person who murdered his wife?
which also means (if the trial system isn't utterly flawed) that the actual murderer remains at large
The trial system isn't utterly flawed, but what it means is that the prosecutors didn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the husband did it. The system is "working" because the authorities have to prove to a jury of your peers that you committed a crime in order to lock you up.
A jury is not an omniscient body, and the police do not go "huh, I coulda sworn he was guilty--back to square one!" when a case is not successfully prosecuted.
The police and prosecutors may, however, decide to pursue convictions of other defendants based on the failure to convict someone else. Of course, their success will depend on the strength of the second case, and a later defendant is going to point out that the authorities thought Mr. A was the driver of the getaway car up until the verdict came out, and now are accusing Mr. B--how good are their investigatory practices? They're looking for scapegoats, etc.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:35 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
The trial system isn't utterly flawed, but what it means is that the prosecutors didn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the husband did it. The system is "working" because the authorities have to prove to a jury of your peers that you committed a crime in order to lock you up.
A jury is not an omniscient body, and the police do not go "huh, I coulda sworn he was guilty--back to square one!" when a case is not successfully prosecuted.
The police and prosecutors may, however, decide to pursue convictions of other defendants based on the failure to convict someone else. Of course, their success will depend on the strength of the second case, and a later defendant is going to point out that the authorities thought Mr. A was the driver of the getaway car up until the verdict came out, and now are accusing Mr. B--how good are their investigatory practices? They're looking for scapegoats, etc.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:35 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
But a jury disagrees and finds the man not-guilty of the murder, which also means (if the trial system isn't utterly flawed) that the actual murderer remains at large.
This isn't right. We have an "innocent until proven guilty" process in the US, which means that the jury needs to be absolutely sure -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- that the person did it before calling them guilty. It doesn't mean that the jury thinks the person didn't do it, or thinks it's clear that someone else did it, it means they don't believe there's enough proof to guarantee that the person did it.
posted by brainmouse at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
This isn't right. We have an "innocent until proven guilty" process in the US, which means that the jury needs to be absolutely sure -- beyond any reasonable doubt -- that the person did it before calling them guilty. It doesn't mean that the jury thinks the person didn't do it, or thinks it's clear that someone else did it, it means they don't believe there's enough proof to guarantee that the person did it.
posted by brainmouse at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
(if the trial system isn't utterly flawed)
There's the rub. In my experience, a jury verdict will do nothing to dissuade police, prosecutors or the public that an individual isn't guilty as sin. (See: OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony.) Most likely, they'll just mark the case "unsolved" and toss it in a box.
In one colorful local anecdote, a refugee with very understanding or use of English was arrested near the scene of a completely random (i.e., stranger shot by a stranger on the street) crime. He "confessed" at the police station, probably because he had no idea what was going on or what anybody was talking about. His charges ultimately got tossed; instead of directing resources to getting back to solving the murder, the police / prosecutors turned around and charged the poor guy with making a false statement to the police. 100% true story.
posted by mibo at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
There's the rub. In my experience, a jury verdict will do nothing to dissuade police, prosecutors or the public that an individual isn't guilty as sin. (See: OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony.) Most likely, they'll just mark the case "unsolved" and toss it in a box.
In one colorful local anecdote, a refugee with very understanding or use of English was arrested near the scene of a completely random (i.e., stranger shot by a stranger on the street) crime. He "confessed" at the police station, probably because he had no idea what was going on or what anybody was talking about. His charges ultimately got tossed; instead of directing resources to getting back to solving the murder, the police / prosecutors turned around and charged the poor guy with making a false statement to the police. 100% true story.
posted by mibo at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
Oh, and to answer the specific will the police now try to help this man find the person who murdered his wife? I honestly cannot imagine so; given the trauma the husband must be dealing with, I can't imagine a scenario where he could cooperate with the police, where the police wouldn't still regard him with suspicion or where he could do anything except change his name and move across the country to deal with everything.
posted by mibo at 12:41 PM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by mibo at 12:41 PM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
If there's evidence pointing in some other direction, they could follow that up. But the mere acquittal of the original suspect doesn't constitute evidence of any kind and so there's no reason for the police to respond to it.
It would be possible for them to reexamine the evidence to see it it would support pursuing some other suspect, but they probably won't because their original read of the evidence was that the original suspect was the guilty party. So the most likely conclusion for them is not that there's some other murderer out there, but that the guilty party got away with it.
posted by Naberius at 12:43 PM on September 24, 2013
It would be possible for them to reexamine the evidence to see it it would support pursuing some other suspect, but they probably won't because their original read of the evidence was that the original suspect was the guilty party. So the most likely conclusion for them is not that there's some other murderer out there, but that the guilty party got away with it.
posted by Naberius at 12:43 PM on September 24, 2013
Best answer: Most police departments believe that the investigation stops with the arrest of their suspect. Unless there is compelling reason to believe that the person arrested didn't in fact do the crime, and it would have to be incredibly compelling, the case is marked solved and that's the end of it.
In the US, our standard of proof is pretty high, "reasonable doubt". So frequenly people are found not guilty, not because they didn't do the crime, but merely because there wasn't enough evidence to convict them.
Additionally, were someone else to be arrested for the crime, it would be that much harder to convict THAT PERSON, because of the prior trial.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 12:58 PM on September 24, 2013
In the US, our standard of proof is pretty high, "reasonable doubt". So frequenly people are found not guilty, not because they didn't do the crime, but merely because there wasn't enough evidence to convict them.
Additionally, were someone else to be arrested for the crime, it would be that much harder to convict THAT PERSON, because of the prior trial.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 12:58 PM on September 24, 2013
do the police re-open the case and continue to search
An open case doesn't automatically mean there is active "searching" going on.
posted by yohko at 1:04 PM on September 24, 2013
An open case doesn't automatically mean there is active "searching" going on.
posted by yohko at 1:04 PM on September 24, 2013
I think it's going to depend in part on why the defendant was acquitted. If it was because of incontrovertible evidence that he/she could not possibly have committed the crime then the police will have to come to the realization that they need to keep looking. One problem is that it takes months, sometimes years, before a trial is held and evidence gets old, witnesses' memories fade, and, sadly more pressing new crimes require solving.
I was a witness in a murder trial many years ago. (No, I did not witness the actual murder.) The guy got acquitted because they mounted a really weak case against him. They did convict him of stealing the dead guy's car and gave him ten years for that, far more than they would have given a simple car thief.
posted by mareli at 1:04 PM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
I was a witness in a murder trial many years ago. (No, I did not witness the actual murder.) The guy got acquitted because they mounted a really weak case against him. They did convict him of stealing the dead guy's car and gave him ten years for that, far more than they would have given a simple car thief.
posted by mareli at 1:04 PM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
It seems like in every case I can think of where somebody was acquitted the first thing the prosecutor and Chief of Police do is get in front of cameras and declare the verdict a travesty of justice. I suspect they spend just as much time looking for the "real" criminal after that as OJ did looking for the "real killer."
posted by COD at 1:09 PM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by COD at 1:09 PM on September 24, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: No, pretty much never. There are a few main reasons for that. The first is the one articulated above: "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent," and it can be simultaneously true that a person committed a crime and that there is insufficient evidence to find the person guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, the police are both practical and egotistical. Most police departments are swamped, and they don't want to reopen cases because that means more work for them that they don't really have time to do. Additionally, police detectives and their bosses, police officials, don't want to believe that they got it wrong, nor do they want the public to perceive them as having gotten it wrong. Human beings naturally are bad at saying "I was wrong. That's even more true for police officers, who have to have the confidence and sometimes sheer ego to accuse people of crimes and put them behind bars. It takes a very strong personality (and very strong personalities are attracted to the job, sometimes to the detriment of civil liberties, but often just because that's what the job of policing society requires.) All of those very natural human feelings make it really psychologically difficult to admit to having made a mistake. And no one wants to have to admit mistakes publicly, especially not when one's job depends on the general public having a high degree of faith that one has the ability to get the right guy without scooping up innocent ones. The police would rather say that the jury got it wrong, or that the prosecutors didn't prove their case, or that a diabolical criminal mastermind got away with murder, than admit that they were wrong.
Finally, once one person has been accused of a crime, much less tried for it, it would be nearly impossible to ever convict someone else. If the prosecutor put on evidence that the first defendant, for example, had motive, had access to the murder weapon, and had no alibi at the time of the crime, it would be pretty easy for the second defendant to argue that all of those factors create reasonable doubt in his case. Unless some very, very damning new evidence were found, like a video of the second guy doing the crime, it would be next to impossible to overcome the reasonable doubt created by the first accusation. Because a conviction would be unlikely to result from any new suspect found, police and prosecutors would be largely wasting their resources trying to find a new suspect to arrest and try.
posted by decathecting at 2:30 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
Second, the police are both practical and egotistical. Most police departments are swamped, and they don't want to reopen cases because that means more work for them that they don't really have time to do. Additionally, police detectives and their bosses, police officials, don't want to believe that they got it wrong, nor do they want the public to perceive them as having gotten it wrong. Human beings naturally are bad at saying "I was wrong. That's even more true for police officers, who have to have the confidence and sometimes sheer ego to accuse people of crimes and put them behind bars. It takes a very strong personality (and very strong personalities are attracted to the job, sometimes to the detriment of civil liberties, but often just because that's what the job of policing society requires.) All of those very natural human feelings make it really psychologically difficult to admit to having made a mistake. And no one wants to have to admit mistakes publicly, especially not when one's job depends on the general public having a high degree of faith that one has the ability to get the right guy without scooping up innocent ones. The police would rather say that the jury got it wrong, or that the prosecutors didn't prove their case, or that a diabolical criminal mastermind got away with murder, than admit that they were wrong.
Finally, once one person has been accused of a crime, much less tried for it, it would be nearly impossible to ever convict someone else. If the prosecutor put on evidence that the first defendant, for example, had motive, had access to the murder weapon, and had no alibi at the time of the crime, it would be pretty easy for the second defendant to argue that all of those factors create reasonable doubt in his case. Unless some very, very damning new evidence were found, like a video of the second guy doing the crime, it would be next to impossible to overcome the reasonable doubt created by the first accusation. Because a conviction would be unlikely to result from any new suspect found, police and prosecutors would be largely wasting their resources trying to find a new suspect to arrest and try.
posted by decathecting at 2:30 PM on September 24, 2013 [2 favorites]
Best answer: The theory is that someone wouldn't be brought up for prosecution until the police were certain that person is the only viable suspect.
(In fact, I think there are situations where two people have been put on trial for the same crime, because the police have evidence that suggests either one of them could have done it. Their job is to investigate, the courts' job is to figure out criminal liability.)
The only circumstance where I could imagine the police would restart a case would be one where the defense somehow made a convincing case that there really is a real killer out there, that the police hadn't already thought of. but that would have to be some Perry Mason kind of stuff.
posted by gjc at 4:16 PM on September 24, 2013
(In fact, I think there are situations where two people have been put on trial for the same crime, because the police have evidence that suggests either one of them could have done it. Their job is to investigate, the courts' job is to figure out criminal liability.)
The only circumstance where I could imagine the police would restart a case would be one where the defense somehow made a convincing case that there really is a real killer out there, that the police hadn't already thought of. but that would have to be some Perry Mason kind of stuff.
posted by gjc at 4:16 PM on September 24, 2013
Typically, cases aren't re-opened when the innocence project or other activists overturn a conviction.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 4:55 PM on September 24, 2013
posted by Lesser Shrew at 4:55 PM on September 24, 2013
Response by poster: I was more envisioning a scenario in which it became clear during the trial that the defendant did not commit the murder, therefore any competent jury [as part of a healthy trial system] would arrive at the proper verdict of Not Guilty.
The spirit of the question revolves around the implications this would have on the original investigation, and how these sort of cases are handled or affected by the trial.
posted by mousepad at 8:54 AM on September 25, 2013
The spirit of the question revolves around the implications this would have on the original investigation, and how these sort of cases are handled or affected by the trial.
posted by mousepad at 8:54 AM on September 25, 2013
Best answer: If it becomes clear during trial that a person didn't commit the crime, there wouldn't be a not guilty verdict, there would be a dismissal. Every jurisdiction I'm familiar with has a mechanism for a judge to find that, as a matter of law, no reasonable juror could return a verdict of guilty, and in such circumstances, the judge would dismiss the case mid-trial. The jury would never deliberate, and no verdict would be entered. And no, the police would not reopen the investigation after such a dismissal.
posted by decathecting at 1:02 PM on September 25, 2013
posted by decathecting at 1:02 PM on September 25, 2013
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by cccorlew at 12:30 PM on September 24, 2013 [5 favorites]