Slashdot Mirror
Don't Google "How To Commit Murder" Before Killing
An anonymous reader alerts us to a murder trial in New Jersey in which Google and MSN searches were used against a woman accused of killing her husband. In the days before the murder, prosecutors say the defendant searched for "How To Commit Murder," "instant poisons," "undetectable poisons," "fatal digoxin doses," and gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Her husband was killed with a gun procured in Pennsylvania. The crime occurred in 2004; of course, people now know to be careful about their searches.
Not much different from admitting evidence suggesting an alleged had checked out a book on poisons from the library when the stand accused of a poisoning death.
What I want to know is whether researching the search histories of the accused is the status quo.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?
Somehow that seems simpler to me.
IANAL, but this would support premeditation -- not necessarily that she COMMITTED the murder. This type of evidence could go a long way in changing a murder 2 case in to a murder 1 case.
I often search for things on wikipedia and google just out of personal interest and curiosity. Every time I search for something related to weaponry or toxic substances etc. I can't help but think to myself "will this ever come back to haunt me?"
:\
For example, the other night I was watching an action movie and it got me curious about exactly what plastic explosives are and how they work. You see them in movies all the time and there's obviously a lot of misinformation and hollywood make-believe at hand so I wanted to find out the real story. I wiki'd for it and had an interesting read.
Now the next time I go to cross the Canada/US border (I live on a border town) I half expect customs to detain me and bring up those searches
Why do you think it would not be admissable?
Anything can be forged or faulty, be it pics, documents, or server logs, the possibility that it could be faked is not by itself grounds for inadmissibility.
While it might be hearsay, it would be a statement against interest, which is one of the hearsay exceptions.
IANAL, although my wife is, and I helped her study a little.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The article says they got it from seized computers, presumably from the browser history or saved form field data.
If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?
Mostly due to time and resource constraints. If Police forces had the resources to bring in CSI on every crime, we would have a much higher prosecution rate. Also, there is only one Columbo, and he deosn't get around much.
I think the latter, though, pretty conclusively proves that most criminals are dumb enough to get caught - unless you believe Japanese criminals are dumber than American ones (wouldn't their cops be too, then?). The vast majority of criminal cases could be solved through simple effort and legwork, but often those are resources that are not readily available.
AFAIK, the high conviction rate in Japan is mainly due to the fact that persons accused of crimes in Japan have very few rights.
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
Agreed.
Nearly all evidence is circumstantial. They could find the gun in your hand - all that means is you picked it up. Not that you fired it. They could find gunshot residue on your hand - all that means is you fired it, not that you fired it at the victim.
I'd hate to be that innocent bastard who stumbles over a gun and picks it up only to have it accidently discharge into the floor, before seeing his very recently murdered ex-girlfriend lying just a few feet away.
Similarly, finding this in her browser history doesn't make her guilty but it sure closes the window of 'reasonable doubt' a little more.
At the same time, it opens up another path for somebody who wants to frame somebody else for the crime.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!