How Courts Handle “Consciousness of Guilt” in Massachusetts
Imagine someone runs from the police after discovering they’re about to be arrested. Someone might say, “See! That shows a guilty conscience!” Showing a guilty conscience might seem self-evident, but it’s not. In Massachusetts, this idea comes with guardrails, as it should. If the jury is told they can interpret someone’s behavior as a sign of guilt, it has the potential to shift the entire direction of a trial—and therefore, the defendant’s life. So how does it work? And what are the safeguards that keep it from being misused?
What Does “Consciousness of Guilt” Mean?
Consciousness of guilt focuses on what someone does after an alleged crime. For example, acting in a way that appears to cover something up, such as running, hiding, or lying, might be argued to show a guilty conscience. But behavior isn’t always that simple. People panic. People get confused. These other explanations should be considered. That’s why Massachusetts courts are cautious before allowing the jury to hear this kind of argument.
What Kind of Behaviors Can and Can’t Be Used to Show Guilt?
Here are some examples that often come up in court:
- Running from the scene or avoiding arrest after learning the police were looking for them. If the defendant ran after committing a different crime, the judge may still allow that evidence, but only if there’s something else connecting the flight to the charges in the current case.
- Providing false statements to police during or after arrest
- Using a fake name or false identification to hide their identity
- Destroying, altering, or hiding evidence, such as deleting messages, throwing out clothing, or wiping fingerprints
- Intimidating, threatening, or bribing a witness they believe will testify against them
- Refusing to provide biological samples (hair, blood, saliva) after a court order
- Changing appearance after the crime to avoid being identified, such as cutting hair, removing tattoos, or changing clothing
- Failing to report to police promptly
- Lying during testimony at trial, also known as perjury. But this type of instruction is discouraged because of its potential to unfairly sway the jury
In most cases, the jury can only consider the defendant’s own actions. There’s one narrow exception in joint venture cases. If the defendant and another person were working together to commit a crime, the jury may be allowed to consider the other person’s actions.
Just Because Something Looks Suspicious Doesn’t Mean it Qualifies
The judge must first decide if the behavior is strong enough to reasonably support an inference of guilt. It doesn’t have to prove guilt on its own. But if the evidence is weak or overly prejudicial, the judge has the power to exclude it altogether. If the judge allows it, the jury needs guidance. That’s where the instruction comes in.
What the Jury Must Be Told
If the defense requests it, the judge is required to instruct the jury on the following points:
- You can consider the behavior, but you don’t have to
- The behavior cannot be the only reason to find them guilty
- Innocent people sometimes act the same way.
- Even if the behavior suggests feelings of guilt, that doesn’t necessarily mean the person committed a crime.
Can the Defendant Offer an Explanation?
Yes. Even if the jury hears the behavior as evidence of guilt, the defendant can still explain what happened.
PLEASE CONTACT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WILLIAM J. BARABINO. CALL 781-393-5900 TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR AVAILABLE DEFENSES.
Related Articles:
