I understand doing so would be illegal of course but nevertheless if you are a guilty and you know it is it really going to be such a big leap for you to destroy your own incriminating evidence? I might of course be missing something or oversimplifying as well since my only knowledge of the court system is honestly from TV/movies.
In: Other
If that action is noticed you may be charged with criminal [spoliation of evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence#Spoliation), and the case you’re supposed to be providing evidence for may be tried under a *spoliation inference* – the assumption that the missing evidence is as damaging to your case as it could have been given the opposing party’s claims.
Also, to add to Bonk’s comment, most documents are usually part of a “chain”
Of documents…you mail me, I call Fred, who emails bonk, and so on. Then, in court, when you are suing Fred, and he cant “find” the emails anymore, and his phone records got mysteriously “lost”, he’s still screwed because the people on either side of the chain can show that those documents should exist.
All properly done transactions generate a “paper trail” of some sort. It is almost impossible to function without, even if the paper trail is becoming more digital and less tangible!
Im pretty sure it’s because if it is discovered that the evidence is destroyed or tampered with, it’s automatically considered a closed case. You basically dug your own grave.
While I’m sure it’s something people still risk and do, the consequences end you at the same spot that it most likely would have, HAD the evidence been submitted
Not to mention how a “smooth” going case could probably land you a lighter sentence. Destroying the evidence may likely land you the harshest sentence
Well in criminal law, you go through a process of discovery, where what each side has is presented to the other. This is stuff like witness lists, evidence that will be presented, police reports etc. Despite client lawyer privilege, if the lawyer/investigator does find physical evidence pertinent to the case, that would need to be presented as part of discovery. If they chose to supress that it could result in a mistrial and the client being tried again with a new lawyer and the lawyer being debared or even jail time. Or in lesser cases the evidence being thrown out and not able to be used in the case.
The same can apply to the prosecution side in a criminal trial. If “the people” are found trying to supress evidence that may cast doubt on the case or choose to blindside the defence with evidence not included in discovery that can result in a mistrial and for the accused to walk in some cases.
In general it depends on the severity of the information that was destroyed or hidden.
When big companies get into court cases, the consequences might be millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in damages or fines or something. And yeah, nobody wants their company to have to pay that.
But if you, the CEO or whatever, destroy evidence, and get caught, then **you** go to prison. Not your company, you the actual person go to actual prison. It’s raising the stakes in a way that unscrupulous but sensible corporate officers don’t want to risk.
Any evidence you plan to use in the case has to be entered into the court proceedings (think exhibit A, exhibit B, etc). It’s usually the prosecutors that are presenting the evidence in a criminal case so if they want to use the evidence the court would know if the defense has been given all the evidence. As far as defense evidence, again you have to submit it to the court as evidence so there is a record, if you don’t provide the evidence to the prosecutors then the court will know and this will raise issues in the proceedings.
Alternatively, there is no mechanism requiring the defense to provide all evidence to the prosecutors if there is no plan to use it in the case. After all, the burden of proof is on the state/prosecutors and the defense isn’t going to willingly hand over damning evidence. There would be no penalty for them withholding that evidence.
Think about it this way. Lets say you are on the jury of a trial. There was a car accident. We don’t know who was at fault. Both drivers have the same story – the other guy veered into the oncoming lane and ran into them. There is no evidence other than that testimony…. BECAUSE: one of the drivers had a dash cam and right after the accident the first cop on the scene watched as the guy removed the memory card from his dash cam and ATE IT.
Now… who caused that accident?
Latest Answers