My favorite pathological curmudgeon, New York criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield, has a good post today about an Orange County woman who was sentenced to a year in jail following a jury verdict convicting her on two felony counts of false imprisonment by fraud or deceit, and two misdemeanor counts of making a false police report. Reporter Larry Welborn covers the story here in the Orange County Register.
In sum, after the defendant and her boyfriend broke up, she sent herself threatening text messages using a pre-paid cell phone she purchased using the name of the boyfriend's sister-in-law. Based on her deception, the police made repeated arrests of the boyfriend and sister-in-law, including three arrests of the sister-in-law alone. Both were forced to spend thousands to post bail.
The true victims in this case (as opposed to the crazy woman the police believed) conducted their own investigation that proved their innocence. But even after they did so, the sister-in-law was arrested again based on a warrant that remained in the system.
Greenfield aptly writes:
Notice that it was left to the defendants to investigate? That's because the police already had their perps in custody. They were high-fiving, munching stale donuts and praising each other's brilliant detective work. Woo hoo, nailed them text message harassers. Time to hand out the medals. Even after the defendants' investigation panned out, they were taken in on the open warrant, forced to await the "follow-up investigation." Of course, there can't be a follow-up until there's an initial investigation. Details. . . .The most painful part of this story is how a scheme by a woman scorned was subject to no scrutiny whatsoever, and resulted in a man and woman being detained to sate the "victim's" need for vengeance. Crazy stuff happens. It wouldn't kill anybody in the system to do that little bit of legwork that would reveal the purported victim to be the criminal.
I'm not privy to the details of what the police did to corroborate her story, or what information they had to put them on notice that she was lying. But this episode illustrates one of the worst aspects of the criminal justice system.
Once the police and/or prosecution come to a conclusion that a crime occurred, or that it occurred in a particular way, or for a particular purpose, that theory is cast in cement. It can be exceptionally difficult to convince people to reexamine that theory, even when presented with evidence of actual innocence. Part of it is intellectual laziness, part of it is a law enforcement culture that doesn't encourage its participants to continuously test their theories whenever they receive new information.
Here's how I've seen it work in practice. The police present the prosecution with reports showing that person X committed an armed robbery. Reasonable minds may differ about whether the evidence is strong enough to justify a criminal filing, but the case is filed nonetheless. Defense counsel (before trial) then presents the prosecutor with evidence that casts serious doubt on defendant X's guilt. Had the prosecution known about this evidence before filing the case, the case very likely wouldn't have been filed. But once it is already in the system, prosecutors often apply a different standard. In other words, they are much more willing to decline a filing at the outset than to dismiss a case that later proves questionable. It makes no difference that a prosecutor's legal and ethical standards remain the same at the pre- and post-filing stages.
The reasons for this phenomenon are varied, but I believe the greatest culprit is simply a lack of courage. Too many prosecutors would rather punt than make a decision that might lead others (e.g., their supervisors or police officer colleagues) to label them as weak or naive.
Significantly, this problem isn't simply one that exists in the relatively rare situation of a case of mistaken identity. It exists in subtler form when new evidence tends to undermine a more discreet aspect of the case. For example, a defense attorney might discover facts that create a genuine doubt about whether self-defense exists, or show that her client might be innocent of a charged crime, and guilty of only a lesser offense, due to a serious mental illness.
The single most effective reform to the criminal justice system would not require legislation. No sentences need to be reduced, no controversial new duties imposed on the police. Rather, the best reform would be for those charged with enforcing the laws - police and prosecutors - to maintain a genuine respect for the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I realize, of course, that police do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to make an arrest. Mere probable cause is required. But it is the exceedingly rare situation where a police officer will make an arrest, and then argue that a case shouldn't be filed due to insufficient evidence. Too often, the police report forever solidifies the "true" facts. Once an arrest is made, no alternative explanations are considered. The existence of the facts in the report are viewed as proving guilt, regardless of what evidence or arguments later come to light to suggest the existence of a reasonable doubt.
Leave a comment