Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

[wcw43921]

I was flipping through channels a couple of nights ago and came across a COPS-style reality show where the vice squad was about to engage in a prostitution-solicitation sting. As they sat in the briefing room, some of them were wearing masks and sunglasses to completely conceal their faces; one of the "stars" said this was because the masked officers were deep undercover and needed to keep their identities secret. Perfectly understandable--but it occurred to me that a clever attorney might argue that a masked police officer might violate the accused's right under the Sixth Amendment to be confronted with the witnesses against him. After all, if the accused can't identify the person making the accusation, how can he be sure the accusation is genuine?

 

Now the argument wouldn't go very far in the above example--for one, not all of the police officers were masked, the accused were recorded on video soliciting "favors" from the decoy officer, and none of them seemed bold enough to fight the charge in court. But it occurs to me that a sanctioned superhero who wears a mask or otherwise conceals his identity could have his evidence and his accusations challenged more successfully on Sixth Amendment grounds, especially if his was the only evidence against the villain.

 

Now non-sanctioned superheroes are supposed to be outside the boundaries that restrict police and other sanctioned crimefighters when it comes to gathering evidence and delivering it to the authorities--but then the authorities have to prove that the hero in question is really non-sanctioned--

 

THE DEFENSE: "Your Honor, the Prosecution claims that the 'evidence' against my client was provided by the dangerous vigilante maniac known as Thatman--

 

THE PROSECUTOR: "Objection to the characterization of Thatman as a 'dangerous vigilante maniac'--"

 

THE DEFENSE: "Who according to them is not a member of the city police department, or any agency affiliated thereof, yet they keep an apparatus called the That-Signal--a gigantic high-powered searchlight with the That-Emblem on it--or the roof of police headquarters so the can call him whenever they need him! Given the existence of this signaling device, and the fact that Thatman answers whenever they light it up, how can they claim he is not operating as an agent of the police?"

 

THE JUDGE: "He makes a good point, Mr. Prosecutor. Anything to offer?"

 

THE PROSECUTOR:

 

Now the closest comment I could find about this issue in Champions was in Champions Universe pg. 50, which said that heroes were allowed to testify in court without revealing their identities, provided they were officially sanctioned or could somehow affirm their Hero ID, but I'm not sure this completely addresses my point. Anyone who could provide where in HERO text the matter is more clearly discussed would be greatly appreciated, as would any other comments.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Balabanto]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

Response: Thatman does not take money from the police department for his actions. By the laws of the state, either Thatman must be receiving an appropriate form of compensation from the police department, or Thatman's actions are those of an independant good samaritan. Condoned does not mean Sanctioned. Otherwise, every person who ever called the police or turned someone over to the police would be considered a vigilante. The fact that the police call Thatman using an unusual method of communication does not indicate that it is the same person every time, nor does it indicate that this individual is anything but. Unless the defense can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the same individual always answers the signal, he has no case for dismissal.

[Clonus]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

Your Honour, I'm looking at my witness list and I'm not seeing Thatman on it. How is this even an issue? The Defense of course is free to subpoena the man who apprehended his client to testify on his behalf, but my case is sufficient to proceed to trial as it stands. If it was not, I would not have laid the indictment.

 

Superheroes do not normally gather or present any evidence against the people they apprehend. Usually the evidence consists of eyewitness testimony (the people the heroes save) and the usual physical evidence processed by police employees and consultants. In the case above it doesn't matter that Thatman is acting as a police agent. The prosecution is not going to be calling Thatman to testify. Note that in real life not every police officer associated with a case, and certainly not every confidential informant is called to testify.)

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

Concealing the identity of undercover cops isn't done when the case is being prosecuted in court. At that time, it is revealed that "Moose" is actually Officer Rocko, of the Investigating Law Enforcement Agency (ILEA). Undercover cops testify as themselves, but it is also established that, while presenting himself as "Moose", he was actualloy in the employ of the ILEA, and while doing so, he witnessed the events he is testifying about. Superheroes interested in preserving their secret IDs probably don't operate that way. Rather, they must rely on providing police with tips and other assistance so the police can find sufficient evidence to convict.

[Marcus Impudite]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

I'm with Clonus on this one. And I wish the Defense good luck issuing a subpoena for Thatman, since no one knows who he really is or where to find him when he's not "on duty."

[sinanju]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

Superheroes do not normally gather or present any evidence against the people they apprehend. Usually the evidence consists of eyewitness testimony (the people the heroes save) and the usual physical evidence processed by police employees and consultants. In the case above it doesn't matter that Thatman is acting as a police agent. The prosecution is not going to be calling Thatman to testify. Note that in real life not every police officer associated with a case' date=' and certainly not every confidential informant is called to testify.)[/quote']

 

Yeah.

 

Prosecutor: "And then what happened, Mr. Smith?"

Witness: "I handed over my wallet. The SOB--"

P: "By which you mean the defendant, Al Mondroca?"

W: "Uh, yeah. He raised his gun and said, 'You seen my face'--and then Thatman jumped out nowhere and kicked the **** out of him."

P: "And then what happened?"

W: "Uh...Thatman tied up the SO...uh, Mr. Mondroca, and told me to call the police. Then he left."

 

Thatman doesn't need to testify. A witness can describe what he saw. The defendant might want to sue Thatman, or demand that he be charged with something for his actions--but it doesn't change the outcome of _this_ case.

[Nothere]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

This reminds me of an old Spiderman comic. Mary Jane was a juror in a case where the police responded to a robbery. Seacrhing the area the found a know criminal tied up in webbing with the stolen loot. At his trial he claimed he was merely walking along, and was distracted from the sound of approaching police sirens. The distraction was Spiderman swinging by, and suddenly throwing the loot at him and tying him up.

Or in the case of Thatman perhaps he has a tendency to break into homes and buisnesses to catch criminals. All of whom would probably claim he planted evidence.

[Narratio]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

As most of the superdudes where gloves and ful body suits there's no latent prints or bits of DNA to substantiate either way. Interesting.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Masked Crimefighters And The Bill Of Rights

 

Response: Thatman does not take money from the police department for his actions. By the laws of the state' date=' either Thatman must be receiving an appropriate form of compensation from the police department, or Thatman's actions are those of an independant good samaritan. Condoned does not mean Sanctioned. Otherwise, every person who ever called the police or turned someone over to the police would be considered a vigilante. The fact that the police call Thatman using an unusual method of communication does not indicate that it is the same person every time, nor does it indicate that this individual is anything but. Unless the defense can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the same individual always answers the signal, he has no case for dismissal.[/quote']Given that prosecutors use information provided by (often criminal) paid informants, I can't see any relevance to this approach to defense. The info provided by Thatman would be no different than an anonymous tip or envelope full of photos taken by a concerned citizen.