Let’s say Bobby is wrongly accused of a crime, but the real perpetrator is someone named Harry. Bobby’s attorney hires a private investigator, who finds proof that Harry is actually the guilty one. But by that time, the trial has already started.
What would happen then? Would the defense lawyer be able to point out Harry’s guilt directly in court? Or would they have to pass this info to the prosecution and hope they’ll drop the case?
I worked with an attorney who did something similar once. One of the victims had a four-fingered blood swipe on her, which didn’t add up. Then the daughter took the stand, and we saw she couldn’t raise her pinky. The attorney used an expert to show that her finger gaps matched the swipe, and after that, the prosecution dropped the charges. It was pretty much like something out of a TV show.
@Luca
Interesting how unprepared the prosecution was to counter that kind of evidence. When they don’t see it coming, it makes their case look weak. Like how they tried to argue the glove might fit for OJ under stress, they’d probably try something similar here.
@Soren
Exactly, and in this case, the girl had cut her tendon, so she physically couldn’t lift her pinky. And yeah, junk science in court is a big problem. Ever hear of the podcast by that attorney on this?
Defense doesn’t actually need to prove anything. They just need to create reasonable doubt. But they might show the evidence to the prosecution first to get the case dropped if it’s strong enough.
They’d have to share it with the prosecution through discovery first. Sometimes, the DA might agree to drop the case if the evidence is solid, but if not, then they could present it in court to create doubt. Defense attorneys are there to make sure their own client is protected.
@Stevie
Criminal defendants don’t have the same kind of discovery obligations as civil ones, so they can withhold some evidence for a while. Still, it’s smart to let the prosecution investigate it themselves if possible.
Depends on how solid the evidence is. If it’s strong, they might file to dismiss the case. But usually, they’d just present it in court to raise doubt about their client’s guilt.
This would mainly help create reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, police and prosecutors don’t really pursue new leads from outside the investigation once they’ve charged someone. The system seems to assume guilt.
If you’re watching Perry Mason, sure! But not so much in real life. Here’s a clip from it, if you’re interested: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NjqDIjPusO8
You might have better luck asking Matlock or Perry Mason!
California law on this:
For third-party evidence to be admissible, it doesn’t need to prove the other person’s guilt; it just has to be enough to raise reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. But not any evidence is accepted—there has to be some connection of the third person to the crime beyond just a motive or opportunity. Evidence needs to be relevant to the case, so it has to go beyond just suspicion to actually make sense in the context of the crime.