On Being Framed
January 27, 2015 12:31 PM Subscribe
In the recent thread on the Silk Road, the Dread Pirate Roberts, and Ross Ulbricht, a big part of the story was Ulbricht's claim that he was framed by Mark Karpeles. How often is "I was framed" used as a defence, and how often does it succeed?
I know that the defence will frequently point to someone else as the culprit, but I'm wondering about the stronger claim that someone framed the defendent, meaning specifically set them up to be caught and convicted in their place.
Like the insanity defence, it's part of the popular imagination's idea of how crimes and trials work, at least at the Matlock/Scooby-Doo level of crime fiction. I suspect that, like the insanity defence, it's not often actually used, and only rarely succeeds. Unlike insanity, I can't think of any prominent cases where it worked. Is there a specific defence of being framed, as there is for insanity defences, and do we have solid statistics on how often it's successful?
I know that the defence will frequently point to someone else as the culprit, but I'm wondering about the stronger claim that someone framed the defendent, meaning specifically set them up to be caught and convicted in their place.
Like the insanity defence, it's part of the popular imagination's idea of how crimes and trials work, at least at the Matlock/Scooby-Doo level of crime fiction. I suspect that, like the insanity defence, it's not often actually used, and only rarely succeeds. Unlike insanity, I can't think of any prominent cases where it worked. Is there a specific defence of being framed, as there is for insanity defences, and do we have solid statistics on how often it's successful?
The suggestion that he was framed by a racist police force played a large part in OJ Simpson's successful defense, did it not?
posted by pretentious illiterate at 2:41 PM on January 27, 2015
posted by pretentious illiterate at 2:41 PM on January 27, 2015
When my two boys were little, they used the "he did it and made it look like me" defense all the time. I think this comes up more with defendants claiming that the police planted a gun (framed him) than with one civilian claiming another civilian.
posted by 724A at 5:43 PM on January 27, 2015
posted by 724A at 5:43 PM on January 27, 2015
I don't think it comes up as often as any other defense theory. It certainly doesn't come up as often as "It wasn't me", "I didn't mean to", or "Even I meant to, I ... [insert lawful defense]". Nor would it come up as often as defenses grounded on constitutional violations. These defenses will be argued in just about every courthouse on a daily basis.
That said, I'm sure some version of the defense is by no means rare.
posted by ageispolis at 11:19 PM on January 27, 2015
That said, I'm sure some version of the defense is by no means rare.
posted by ageispolis at 11:19 PM on January 27, 2015
Best answer: IANAL -- just a lay observer like anyone else.
First of all, it would only really matter at trial, and only about 3% of criminal charges in the US actually go to trial -- the rest are settled by plea bargaining and/or dismissal.
Second, there are all sorts of ways in which a legitimate defense essentially tries to rebut the prosecution's version of evidence or events such that it could reasonably have been anyone else. In the OJ murder case, this involved casting doubt on the accuracy of the DNA evidence, for example; the "if it doesn't fit" glove stunt essentially pointed to a conclusion that the evidence "fit" anyone but OJ. This is a little different from creating a "he wuz framed" defense in that you're not trying to prove that, say, Furman had the glove in his possession at a different location and dropped it on OJ's property (although that was also raised in defense). Which brings us to
Third, the defense is generally not in the business of constructing an alternative prosecution of a third party (which isn't to say that doesn't happen). The way criminal trials in the US legal system work, the prosecution has the responsibility of bringing in the bulk of evidence, which they believe shows the defendant did it, and the defense simply has the job of creating reasonable doubt in the jury or judge, which is done by rebutting evidence or testimony point by point. As a tactic it would certainly be valid and certainly has been done that the defense is saying evidence could have been manufactured or planted, but again, they don't have to prove that it was, only that it could either be legitimate or illegitimate (or truthful or deceptive, etc.) to the extent necessary to persuade the jury. Again, the defense does not actually have the burden of proving that the evidence is falsified, only that having been falsified is one possibility. That's just the way the system is -- in theory if not as apparent in practice -- weighted.
So as often as it may be raised as part of pre-trial maneuvering or public relations, it isn't as clear-cut a way to mount a defense as you suggest.
Finally, there's the issue of introducing irrelevant evidence. The defense will have a hard time bringing evidence into the courtroom that isn't directly related to the case at hand, and it will be subject to challenge and sometimes evidence itself results in an appeals decision even before the trial is begun (or afterward, in which case the appeals decision directs a mistrial or retrial). That said, the rules of procedure give attorneys much more leeway in their summation/final statement than in the courtroom per se, and this is when they can introduce, unchallenged, new evidence or an alternate theory. And this does sometimes happen, where the defense will take everything that's been presented and recast it as evidence someone else was involved, or that the evidence has been tampered/falsified/etc.
So there are many shades of gray here and it's not a simple answer. In the broadest possible definition, any vigorous defense could be interpreted as saying the prosecution is framing the defendant. (As a difference from a third party having done it.)
As one example of an appeals court reviewing a conviction and finding a grossly incompetent or deliberately obtuse prosecution, look at US v. Thompson. It's very rare for an appeals court to do more than just bounce the decision back to the trial court level. In this one, though, they ordered the defendant freed immediately, without delay. For examples of post-conviction defenses, e.g. the Innocence Project and related state-by-state reviews of (mainly) death-penalty cases, there is actually an implicit or explicit argument that the prosecution abused its authority, role, and access to evidence and/or witnesses to construct a false narrative. For a long time this sort of approach was wholly unconstitutional in the conventional legal wisdom -- the conviction was based on the evidence at trial, and newly discovered evidence was essentially an attempt to retry the case at appeals. Summary rejections were legion. But the advent of DNA evidence was basically the tipping point to allowing review of cases with "new" evidence.
posted by dhartung at 12:36 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
First of all, it would only really matter at trial, and only about 3% of criminal charges in the US actually go to trial -- the rest are settled by plea bargaining and/or dismissal.
Second, there are all sorts of ways in which a legitimate defense essentially tries to rebut the prosecution's version of evidence or events such that it could reasonably have been anyone else. In the OJ murder case, this involved casting doubt on the accuracy of the DNA evidence, for example; the "if it doesn't fit" glove stunt essentially pointed to a conclusion that the evidence "fit" anyone but OJ. This is a little different from creating a "he wuz framed" defense in that you're not trying to prove that, say, Furman had the glove in his possession at a different location and dropped it on OJ's property (although that was also raised in defense). Which brings us to
Third, the defense is generally not in the business of constructing an alternative prosecution of a third party (which isn't to say that doesn't happen). The way criminal trials in the US legal system work, the prosecution has the responsibility of bringing in the bulk of evidence, which they believe shows the defendant did it, and the defense simply has the job of creating reasonable doubt in the jury or judge, which is done by rebutting evidence or testimony point by point. As a tactic it would certainly be valid and certainly has been done that the defense is saying evidence could have been manufactured or planted, but again, they don't have to prove that it was, only that it could either be legitimate or illegitimate (or truthful or deceptive, etc.) to the extent necessary to persuade the jury. Again, the defense does not actually have the burden of proving that the evidence is falsified, only that having been falsified is one possibility. That's just the way the system is -- in theory if not as apparent in practice -- weighted.
So as often as it may be raised as part of pre-trial maneuvering or public relations, it isn't as clear-cut a way to mount a defense as you suggest.
Finally, there's the issue of introducing irrelevant evidence. The defense will have a hard time bringing evidence into the courtroom that isn't directly related to the case at hand, and it will be subject to challenge and sometimes evidence itself results in an appeals decision even before the trial is begun (or afterward, in which case the appeals decision directs a mistrial or retrial). That said, the rules of procedure give attorneys much more leeway in their summation/final statement than in the courtroom per se, and this is when they can introduce, unchallenged, new evidence or an alternate theory. And this does sometimes happen, where the defense will take everything that's been presented and recast it as evidence someone else was involved, or that the evidence has been tampered/falsified/etc.
So there are many shades of gray here and it's not a simple answer. In the broadest possible definition, any vigorous defense could be interpreted as saying the prosecution is framing the defendant. (As a difference from a third party having done it.)
As one example of an appeals court reviewing a conviction and finding a grossly incompetent or deliberately obtuse prosecution, look at US v. Thompson. It's very rare for an appeals court to do more than just bounce the decision back to the trial court level. In this one, though, they ordered the defendant freed immediately, without delay. For examples of post-conviction defenses, e.g. the Innocence Project and related state-by-state reviews of (mainly) death-penalty cases, there is actually an implicit or explicit argument that the prosecution abused its authority, role, and access to evidence and/or witnesses to construct a false narrative. For a long time this sort of approach was wholly unconstitutional in the conventional legal wisdom -- the conviction was based on the evidence at trial, and newly discovered evidence was essentially an attempt to retry the case at appeals. Summary rejections were legion. But the advent of DNA evidence was basically the tipping point to allowing review of cases with "new" evidence.
posted by dhartung at 12:36 AM on January 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
« Older Is there a UK equivalent to factual.com? | Should I get LASIK when I already have dry eye... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
In that regard it comes up about as often as any other defense theory.
posted by xeney at 1:03 PM on January 27, 2015 [3 favorites]