Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Questions about technicalities

[AC79]

I am not sure if I will phrase this correctly:

When a defendent is let off because of a technicality, what is considered a technicality?

 

[NYClex]

It is a term used in newspapers and books, but not in judicial language. What is meant is this: If someone is accused of a crime there are basically two ways to get off:

-the state cannot prove that the accused committed the crime, the jury finds him not guilty, he is off.

-there are cases, in which the jury never really gets to decide about guilt or innocence because somewhere in the chain of events from the commission of the crime to the trial rules were broken, someone made a mistake. In certain cases, not in all cases, the breach of the rules is considered to be so important that a fair procedure can no longer be guaranteed. In this case a judge will dismiss the charges without ever deciding if the accused was guilty or not. The accused is off the hook, by a "technicality"

Example: Billy has robbed a bank, but nobody saw him do it or has any clue that he did it. He hides the money under his mattress. The next day Billy beats up his boss who he hated and quits, being a millionaire now. The boss files charges for assault against him.

Billy is charged with assault. He tells his lawyer that he hopes to get off, "because he did other things in the past".

The lawyer happens to be the lover of a detective. To get her promoted he tells his lover that she should check out Billy for other crimes because of what he told him. The next night, the detective breaks into Billy's apartment and searches it, finding the money. Billy is arrested. To make him confess, three big cops beat him up. He confesses. Billy is charged with robbery.


There are several major breaches of procedure in this story: the attorney should never have told the detective what Billy said to him. The detective should never have secretly broken into Billy's apartment and searched it. The cops should never have beaten up Billy to make him confess.

Once Billy is charged and this time has a good lawyer, he would bring all this to the attention of the judge. The judge would find the evidence against Billy so tainted, that he would not admit either the search results nor the confession nor the statement from the lawyer. Therefore the state's case would be destroyed. Billy would be set free. He would have gotten off because of "technicalities"

Not all "techincalities" need to be that dramatic. It could be for example that the state messed up by filing charges too late, after the statute of limitations has run, and other things like that.