World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

False evidence

Article Id: WHEBN0003544991
Reproduction Date:

Title: False evidence  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: David Camm, Samsung, New York State Police Troop C scandal, Capital punishment in Judaism, Forgery
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

False evidence

False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict in a court case. Falsified evidence could be created by either side in a case (including the police/prosecution in a Parallel construction is a form of false evidence in which the evidence is truthful but its origins are untruthfully described, at times in order to avoid evidence being excluded as inadmissible due to unlawful means of procurement such as an unlawful search.

Apart from the desire for one side or another to succeed or fail in its case, the exact rationale for falsifying evidence can vary. Falsifying evidence to procure the conviction of those honestly believed guilty is considered a form of police corruption even though it is intended to (and may) result in the conviction of the guilty; however it may also reflect the incorrect prejudices of the falsifier, and it also tends to encourage corrupt police behavior generally. In the United Kingdom this is sometimes called 'Noble Cause Corruption'. A "throw down", i.e. the planting of a weapon at a crime scene might be used by the police to justify shooting the victim in self-defense, and avoid possible prosecution for manslaughter.[1] However, the accused might have falsified some evidence, especially if not arrested immediately, or by having other access to a crime scene and related areas.


  • Types 1
  • Cases 2
    • The Crewe murders 2.1
    • Murder of Holly Skater 2.2
    • New York State Police Troop C scandal 2.3
    • FBI scandal 2.4
    • Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.5
  • See also 3
  • References 4
  • Further reading 5


  • Forged evidence - an item or information manufactured, or altered, to support some agenda, is not admissible in many courts, including U.S. criminal courts.
  • Planted evidence - an item or information which has been moved, or planted at a scene, to seem related to the accused party, is not admissible in many courts, including U.S. criminal courts.
  • Tainted evidence - information which has been obtained by illegal means or has been revealed (or traced) using evidence acquired by illegal search, and/or seizure, is called the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is not admissible in many courts, including U.S. criminal courts.
  • Parallel construction - tainted evidence, where the origin of the evidence is untruthfully represented, preventing discussion of whether it was legally obtained or not.
  • Suppressed evidence - an item or information which a court judge has ruled as "inadmissible" is forbidden to be presented in a court case. Suppressed evidence might be excluded because it was found hidden or locked away in areas the accused could not be proven to know.

In some criminal cases, a person will be identified as a "person of interest" for a few days before arrest, allowing time to reveal suspicious actions (such as in recorded phone calls), or to attempt to falsify evidence before their arrest. A type of falsified evidence, used to acquit, would be faked sales receipts which indicated activities (with the accused) had occurred elsewhere during the time of the crime.


The Crewe murders

In June 1970 A Pukekawa, Lower Waikato, couple were killed and their bodies dumped in the Waikato River. Arthur Allan Thomas, a local farmer, was twice convicted of their murders but following massive publicity was later given a Royal Pardon.

Two bullet cases presented by senior policemen Hutton and Johnston were crucial evidence for the conviction. In 1980, after Thomas's pardon a Royal commission into the convictions concluded "Mr Hutton and Mr Johnston planted the shellcase, exhibit 350 in the Crewe garden, and that they did so to manufacture evidence that Mr Thomas's rifle had been used for the killings."[2]

Murder of Holly Skater

In 1992, 11-year-old Holly Staker was raped and murdered while babysitting in Waukegan, Illinois. A local man named Juan Rivera was convicted of the murder solely on the basis of a confession, one that he claimed was coerced. No physical evidence linked him to the crime scene and many details of his confession contradicted known evidence from the crime scene. DNA testing done in 2004 on semen taken from the crime scene ruled out Rivera as the source, however, the prosecution argued that the semen sample came from previous consensual sex with another man. Rivera was convicted again. His conviction was overturned by the appellate court who took the unusual step of barring prosecutors from retrying Rivera and he was released.[3]

After his release, Rivera's attorneys asked the courts to order genetic testing on a piece of evidence the prosecution had tried to use at his trial in 1993. Rivera's shoes had blood on them, which the prosecution argued belonged to Holly. The prosecution withdrew them prior to his first trial when it was discovered that the shoes were not available for sale anywhere in the United States until after the murder. In 2015, Juan's attorney sought further forensic testing on the shoes. DNA analysis indicated that the blood indeed belonged to Holly, but also contained another genetic sample; one that matched the semen sample. Rivera's defense team insists that this is proof not only that the blood was planted, but that the real killer's DNA was inadvertently planted as well. The DNA has yet to be matched to an individual, but has been linked to DNA from another home invasion and murder. The man convicted of that crime also claims to be wrongfully convicted.[4][5]

Following his exoneration, he was awarded $20 million USD, the largest wrongful conviction settlement in US history.[6][7][6]

New York State Police Troop C scandal

In the

  • National Law Journal; October 9, 1995; "Faked Evidence Becomes Real Problem-From Fingerprints to Photos to Computer Data, Lawyers are Learning to be Vigilant"
  • New York Times; November 22, 1992, Sunday; "Ripples of a Pathologist's Misconduct In Graves and Courts of West Texas. The prairie graveyards of West Texas are giving mute testimony to the misdeeds of a circuit-riding pathologist who left a trail of faked autopsies, botched blood samples and missing organs from the Panhandle to the Rio Grande. According to defense lawyers' estimates, as many as 20 capital murder cases ..."
  • John F. Kelly and Phillip K. Wearne; Tainting Evidence: Inside The Scandals At The FBI Crime Lab

Further reading

  1. ^ "689 F. 2d 1220 - Webster v. City of Houston". 28 October 1982. paragraph 29. Retrieved 17 April 2015. 
  2. ^ Taylor, Robert Linsay; John Bowie Gorden; Allen Howard Johnston (1980). "Report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the Circumstances of the Convictions of Arthur Allan Thomas for the Murders of David Harvey screwed Jeanette Lenore Crewe" (PDF). Book. NZ Government Printer. p. 125. Retrieved 2009-06-11. 
  3. ^ "People V. Rivera". Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District. December 9, 2011. 
  4. ^ Mills, Steve (December 10, 2014). "Attorneys: Police planted blood on Juan Rivera's shoes in Waukegan slaying". Chicago Tribune. 
  5. ^ Hinkel, Dan; Mills, Steve (January 30, 2015). "Judge orders tests for alleged evidence tampering in Juan Rivera case". Chicago Tribune. 
  6. ^ a b Moran, Dan (May 5, 2015). "Man freed after 20 years in prison for murder gets $7.5 million from Waukegan". The Chicago Tribune. 
  8. ^ "Police Investigation Supervisor Admits Faking Fingerprints".  
  9. ^ a b c d Weapons left by US troops 'used as bait to kill Iraqis', Kim Sengupta, Baghdad, The Independent, 25 September 2007
  10. ^ a b c d U.S. Aims To Lure Insurgents With 'Bait', Washington Post
  11. ^ a b U.S. Army Snipers Accused of 'Baiting' Iraqi Insurgents, Fox News September 25, 2007 "sworn statements and testimony in the cases of two other accused Ranger snipers indicate that the Army has a classified program that encourages snipers to "bait" potential targets and then kill whoever takes the bait", "The transcript of a court hearing for two of the three accused snipers makes several references to the existence of a classified "baiting" program"
  12. ^ a b c Murder or Exhaustion in Iraq?, Time
  13. ^ Stark writes to Defense Secretary Gates to express alarm at military "Baiting" of Iraqis
  14. ^ U.S. Snipers Accused of 'Baiting' Iraqis, Pauline Jelinek and Robert Burns, The Associated Press, September 25, 2007


See also

The Independent newspaper quoted a spokesperson for the US military as saying: "There are no classified programs that authorise the murder of local nationals and the use of 'drop weapons' to make killings appear legally justified."[9]

The Asymmetric Warfare Group is said by Captain Didier to have sent boxes of the kind normally used to hold ammunition filled with "drop items" to his unit, the 1st Battalion 501st Infantry Regiment in order "to disrupt the AIF (Anti-Iraqi Forces) attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."[9][10]

[12] Hensley and Sandoval were charged with murder, of which they were acquitted, and with planting evidence, of which they were found guilty.[10] A military court found that on the 27th of April, 2007,

In 2008, three United States Army soldiers were found guilty of planting evidence in this way; one of them, Sgt. Evan Vela, was also sentenced to a 10-year prison term for murder of an unarmed Iraqi.[12]

The use of drop weapons has been the cause of some controversy in the Iraq War.[12][13][14]

In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers have been known to place weapons on or near a slain individual to make that person appear to be an enemy combatant or insurgent.[9][10][11] Alternatively, a drop weapon or other item is left in the open; any individual who picks it up may be fired upon; a process known as baiting.[9][10][11]

Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

Such laws and regulatory procedures stipulating the conditions under which evidence can be handled and manipulated fall under a body of due process statues called chain of custody rules. It is crucial for law enforcement agencies to scrupulously collect, handle and transfer evidence in order to avoid its falsification. In most jurisdictions, chain of evidence rules require that the transfer of criminal evidence be handled by as few persons as possible. To prevent error or improper tampering, chain of evidence rules also stipulate that those authorized to experiment with collected evidence document the nature, time, date and duration of their handling.

In the 1990s, the fingerprint, DNA, and explosive units of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory had written reports confirming local police department theories without actually performing the work.

FBI scandal

After the truth came out, it was discovered that they had been falsifying evidence in cases for many years. At least three officers were convicted. Every case the department had been involved in had to be reinvestigated.


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.