Evidence of a defendant’s “consciousness of guilt” is usually admissible at trial. The defendant may be deemed conscious of his guilt in any of the following circumstances,
- Fleeing from police,
- Lying to investigating officers,
- Giving false names or false ID to police,
- Tempering or concealing evidence,
- Bribing or intimating witnesses.
If any of the above is part of the facts, prosecutors typically can present those facts to the jury at trial. Additionally, the prosecutor can request that the trial judge read the “consciousness of guilt” instructions to the jury.
According to the instructions, if the defendant’s actions suggest that he attempted to evade police or thwart they investigation,
[Jurors] may consider whether such actions indicate feelings of guilt by the defendant and whether, in turn, such feelings of guilt might tend to show actual guilt on [the present charge or charges].
However, “consciousness of guilt” evidence alone is insufficient to convict a defendant. And judges must advise the jury that there may be more than one reason for the defendant’s behavior.
you should always remember that there may be numerous reasons why an innocent person might do such things. Such conduct does not necessarily reflect feelings of guilt. Please also bear in mind that a person having feelings of guilt is not necessarily guilty in fact, for such feelings are sometimes found in innocent people.
Lastly, a defendant is not obligated to speak with police or to aid in their investigation. Therefore, defendant’s who remain silent when questioned by police are not demonstrating a guilty conscious. Nor are defendants who refuse to voluntarily provide officers with pertinent evidence. (Refusing to provided a court-ordered DNA sample, however, can be construed as “consciousness of guilt” evidence.)