Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
I don't remember all the details now, but I think a good argument could have been made that his flight was suggestive of guilt.
The United States Supreme Court has long held that evidence of flight after committing a crime is relevant to establish a defendant's consciousness of guilt, even though not sufficient in and of itself to sustain a conviction. See, e.g., Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 510-11, 16 S.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051 (1896); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).
|
That seems so wrong to me. Couldn't an innocent fellow evade the law also because he doesn't want to go to jail for a crime he did not commit? Then again, the law is not equatable to what I or anyone thinks is right.
I am not a psychologist either but I would think the choice to run from the cops, fight the cops, or comply with an arrest has more to do with mental crisis (the case for OJ, who was suicidal and clearly not really with it during the unplanned escape attempt) or for a rational accused, a calculation of whether they think they will be convicted (whether or not they did it) and if they see that outcome as preferable to the odds they will get additional charges or be murdered if they don't comply.
I read Toobin's book a year or two ago on the trial so I remember a decent bit of it for now. It's one wild case even if OJ wasn't who he was. I'm hard pressed to think of another public case that was botched so badly by the state.