Are there 5th Amendment protections for exculpatory evidence?

[Isophix]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

I don't think you understand the word exculpate or the privileges afforded by the Amendment!

 

[Isophix]

I am wondering if there is a 5th amendment protection against exculpatory evidence being used as the basis of new, different criminal charges?
The following is a parallel hypothetical to a real-life scenario:
An example would be - a guy is charged with shoplifting at a store. The surveillance video shows a person of similar build to Suspect X, an individual who has been in trouble with the law prior. Upon interview with Suspect X, he claims he doesn't know where he was that day/time. Suspect X is arrested, based on prior convictions and the video evidence.
Suspect X posts bond, and calls his local attorney. Attorney reviews Suspect X's social media, and finds a Facebook Live video showing Suspect X chilling on the couch, smoking weed, and with a line of cocaine on the coffee table. The video is timestamped the same time as the shoplifting, with a television playing in the background. The movie playing on the television in the video is what was playing at that time, providing further evidence of the authenticity.
Here's the dilemma. Suspect X has proof that he was not guilty of the shoplifting charge. However, the proof itself does provide evidence of a different crime - possession of a controlled substance.
The original charge is a misdemeanor. The possession charge would be a felony.
Can Suspect X's attorney safely present the exculpatory evidence without placing his client is a greater jeopardy of even harsher charges? Could the DA seek a search warrant, claiming the video creates probable cause? To make clear, this video was posted privately to the suspect's Facebook account. It is unrealistic that it would have come to the prosecution's attention without the defense using it as exculpatory evidence.
If so, what is the cites and precedent for doing so?

 

[Isophix]

I don't think you understand the word exculpate or the privileges afforded by the Amendment!

Somehow, the body of my post was deleted...

 

[STEPHAN]

Homework ?

 

[Isophix]

Homework ?

No, I find myself in a similar situation, but on a traffic issue. I have a dashcam showing that I did not commit the violation cited for. I want to know if I could be charged with a separate violation (seatbelt), if I use the dashcam video as proof of innocence for the first charge (crossing centerline).

Question was posed in a "bigger" sense, because I am more interested in this principle than just my petty traffic citation.

 

[justalayman]

If there is adequate evidence to charge you, yes, you could be charged even if you bring in the evidence. You have a right to not incriminate yourself but if you do, that evidence can be used against you.

 

[Isophix]

I find it interesting that there isn't a "fruit of the poisonous tree" concept here. It seems odd that by offering evidence of innocence in one charge, you could open yourself up to a different charge. The only reason you are incriminating yourself is because you are being forced to do so to prove innocence in an entirely different subject matter.

Hopefully someone with legal training knows how to hunt up a precedent... It's crazy to believe that this has never happened and not been adjudicated before.

 

[quincy]

I find it interesting that there isn't a "fruit of the poisonous tree" concept here. It seems odd that by offering evidence of innocence in one charge, you could open yourself up to a different charge. The only reason you are incriminating yourself is because you are being forced to do so to prove innocence in an entirely different subject matter.

Hopefully someone with legal training knows how to hunt up a precedent... It's crazy to believe that this has never happened and not been adjudicated before.

What is the name of your state, Isophix?

Most people do not record themselves committing crimes so this does not come up often.

It would be more likely for a video recording to be accessed from store or street surveillance, to show someone was someplace else at the time of a crime.

While a video showing an individual committing a crime potentially could be admitted into evidence, for the limited purpose of showing that the individual could not have been committing a different crime at the same time, I am not sure an attorney would advise using it in court - especially if the crime on videotape is worse than the crime that is being prosecuted.

Here is a link to the Federal Rules of Evidence (click on Rule 403): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Good luck with your traffic violation. Your hypothetical, as a note, was far more interesting.

 

[justalayman]

I find it interesting that there isn't a "fruit of the poisonous tree" concept here. It seems odd that by offering evidence of innocence in one charge, you could open yourself up to a different charge. The only reason you are incriminating yourself is because you are being forced to do so to prove innocence in an entirely different subject matter.

Hopefully someone with legal training knows how to hunt up a precedent... It's crazy to believe that this has never happened and not been adjudicated before.

Fruit of the poisonous tree applies to evidence obtained improperly and evidence discover due to the original improperly obtained evidence. You choosing to provide incriminating evidence is not improperly obtained evidence and since you are the one bringing the original evidence into court, there is no original improperly obtained evidence.

Bottom line; if you walk up to a cop unsolicited and confess to a crime, that confession is admissible against you. That is basically what you are doing with the evidence of the additional crime.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

I once had a client who solicited two young girls (aged 16) for sex. When they arrived they robbed him. He reported the robbery to the police and they charged him with solicitation of a minor instead.

I had another client who could prove that the victim was lying when she claimed she didn't know him. But the proof was that they had committed crimes together multiple times in the past. We kept that to ourselves, for multiple reasons.

If you voluntarily incriminate yourself to the police then you can't turn around and accuse the police of violating any of your constitutional rights, so that evidence absolutely can be used against you. So you and your attorney have to decide the cost benefit analysis of sharing your info with the State.

 

[quincy]

... If you voluntarily incriminate yourself to the police then you can't turn around and accuse the police of violating any of your constitutional rights, so that evidence absolutely can be used against you. So you and your attorney have to decide the cost benefit analysis of sharing your info with the State.

I have heard of none-too-bright (or much-too-high) individuals reporting to the police the theft of their illegal drugs.

And YouTube videos continue to provide good evidence for the police to use against stupid criminals who not only videotape their crimes but then decide to post them on the internet for all to see. Kid vandals appear to be those most likely to videotape and publish their criminal shenanigans.

Even some posts to this forum have wound up in courtrooms - Ohiogal has spoken of a few from the Family Law section and, in two defamation cases and one copyright infringement case that I am aware of, threads here were used by plaintiffs to support their successful cases against the defendant-posters.

It seems a bit silly to have to remind people not to discuss publicly and not to videotape their illegal acts, because this would seem to be common sense, but I guess it might not be a sense common to all.

 

[Zigner]

The whole crossing centerline vs seatbelt question aside...why do you think your video is even going to be allowed as evidence?