Incriminating Evidence

Example

After a woman kills her sister, she goes home. Believing that no one else is there, the woman boasts that she killed her sister and got away with it. Unbeknownst to the woman, her ex-boyfriend had used his key to enter the house to get his belongings, and he used his phone to secretly record the woman’s comments about the murder. If this evidence is deemed admissible, it will tend to incriminate the woman in her sister’s murder.

Case Examples

• Seizing incriminating evidence: When investigating a crime, a police officer may seize evidence without a warrant if the officer reasonably believes it to be incriminating and it is within plain sight or view. This rule is known as the Plain View Doctrine. See United States v. Messino, 871 F. Supp. 1035, 1039 (N.D. Ill. 1995). The Plain View Doctrine allows a police officer to seize incriminating evidence if the officer can see it from a lawful vantage point. This means that the officer was allowed into the home or area without a warrant, the evidence being seized is clearly incriminating, and the officer has clear, unobstructed access to the incriminating items. Id. In Messino, the defendant, who was accused of financial crimes, argued that the police had illegally seized his address book and his Rolodex from his home without a warrant. Id. However, the Appeals Court disagreed, finding that the federal agent had probable cause to believe that the address book or Rolodex would likely contain incriminating evidence of the defendant's crimes. Id. The Court also found that the Rolodex and address book were on the defendant's desk, in plain view and easily accessible. Id. Therefore, the federal agent could seize this evidence under the plain view doctrine. Id. The court did note, however, that if the federal agent had needed to open drawers or move equipment to gain access to the address book or the Rolodex, the agent would not have been able to seize it under the plain view doctrine even though the evidence was incriminating. Id.
• Incriminating evidence's prejudicial nature does not automatically exclude it from trial: Courts have found that by its very definition, incriminating evidence is prejudicial to the defendant. See United States v. Haney, 914 F.2d 602, 607 (4th Cir. 1990). However, its prejudicial nature does not automatically exclude it from being used at trial, particularly if it is helpful to the jury. Id.