Sure he could. The standard isn’t “a reasonable shadow of doubt,” it’s reasonable doubt. While I don’t know exactly what evidence defense counsel would put forward, based on viewing the tape alternative explanations for why the guy would eat a piece of paper in that context would seem unreasonable. Unless one of the jurors is a kooky nullifier more interested in making a point than in doing his duty, it seems like a pretty easy case for the prosecution under the quoted statute.

Chris Mallory: Personally, I would vote not guilty on “tampering with evidence”. They can’t prove what the note said. It was the defendant’s property, he could dispose of it if he wished.

Where in Section 2921.12 does it say that one cannot be found guilty of “tampering with evidence” if what was “alter(ed), destroy(ed) conceal(ed) or remove(d)” was a “record, document, or other thing” that the accused had property rights in? I don’t see such an exception and thing it very unlikely to exist.

PatHMV: As for the “it was a love note from my girlfriend and I didn’t want my baby mama to see it” defense, I don’t think that a reasonable jury would be compelled to find that excuse to create a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I would vote not guilty on “tampering with evidence”. They can’t prove what the note said. It was the defendant’s property, he could dispose of it if he wished.

If they aren’t, the bank robbery case against him could be in trouble. If the money can be linked to the bank, then he’s done. Otherwise, all they have him on is the weapon and car, not the bank. He didn’t show the gun during the robbery, so there really isn’t any link there. Without the note, the only physical evidence linking him there is (maybe) the money.

Oren: Sound like he ate his way to a second felony. Section 2921.12, Ohio Statutes is entitled “Tampering with evidence” and states in relevant part as follows:

That was what I was thinking when I read this as well.

PatHMV: As a prosecutor, I actually lost a DWI case due to post-accident drinking. One car collision, guy walks away from the scene, catches a ride home. The police arrive about an hour later (having stumbled upon the accident), to find the guy having put away several beers. He testified that he had done no drinking before the accident (despite having spent the entire day in his friend’s new bar, helping get it ready for a grand opening later that night), and drank some beers after he got home because he was so shaken up. That was enough to create reasonable doubt.</P

You’re not alone. While courtwatching during law school, I once saw this very defense prevail in a DUI case. A guy was found stinking drunk next to his pickup truck, which was in a roadside ditch. On the stand, he claimed he swerved into a ditch to avoid a “deer,” then exited the vehicle and started drinking because he was so shaken up.

The jury bought it. On the way out, the prosecutor and public defender just smiled at each other.

As a prosecutor, I actually lost a DWI case due to post-accident drinking. One car collision, guy walks away from the scene, catches a ride home. The police arrive about an hour later (having stumbled upon the accident), to find the guy having put away several beers. He testified that he had done no drinking before the accident (despite having spent the entire day in his friend’s new bar, helping get it ready for a grand opening later that night), and drank some beers after he got home because he was so shaken up. That was enough to create reasonable doubt.

Guy… sorry about that! I’m afraid I’ve seen some REALLY ludicrous arguments by criminal defense attorneys.

Neurodoc… I was, of course, being a bit facetious with my “baby mamma” terminology. It’s just that the hypothetical explanation reminded me of an experience my brother had once, where one of his semi-pro football player teammates cajoled my brother into giving him a ride home, to his apartment where he lived with his baby mamma (his term, not mine or my brother’s), wait for him to shower and change, and then give him a ride to his girlfriend’s house. While my brother was at the apartment, waiting for him to finish showering, the baby mamma discovered (by rifling through the teammate’s pockets) where he was going next, and an argument ensued. My brother did end up giving the guy a ride to girlfriend’s house, in the end.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: A Snack Incident to Arrest: Note to Law Enforcement Personnel: If you arrest a suspect for bank robbery, and yo.. http://bit.ly/8bjULS...

Well, it’s illegal to drink on a public street/sidewalk in most jurisdictions anyway. Also generally illegal to have an open container of alcohol in your car.

True, but tangential to the question I was musing upon: whether one would be committing a tampering-of-evidence sort of offense. (But I raised it as a humbug as much as anything.)

Largo:
Probably. But could he be convicted of a tampering offense? Oren cites an Ohio statute:
I guess it would depend on local statute and local sense of what a “reasonable” man “ought” to have known about what is “likely”.(I can’t help but add: bah — I hate vague laws like that.So is it generally illegal to drink immediately after an auto accident to calm one’s nerves?)

Well, it’s illegal to drink on a public street/sidewalk in most jurisdictions anyway. Also generally illegal to have an open container of alcohol in your car.

But if he were caught, say, pouring out a glass of liquid as the police arrived, then I think a reasonable jury could conclude that he was probably getting rid of evidence that he had been drinking,

Probably. But could he be convicted of a tampering offense? Oren cites an Ohio statute:

“no person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following:

I guess it would depend on local statute and local sense of what a “reasonable” man “ought” to have known about what is “likely”.

(I can’t help but add: bah – I hate vague laws like that. So is it generally illegal to drink immediately after an auto accident to calm one’s nerves?)

PatHMV: Oh, and Guy, you can’t suppress the evidence of the bank robbery because the prosecutor must prove the existence of an investigation as one element of the offense. Additionally, the totality of the facts, the dye pack, the gun, and the car meeting the description are in fact relevant to determining whether the suspect had an intent of interfering with an investigation.

I was joking, but maybe I made the mistake of not making an argument so sophistic that no lawyer would make it. That is a pretty high bar to clear sometimes.

PatHMV: Yes, it is all contextual…Moreover, juries are entitled to evaluate things like facial expressions…Finally, the statute doesn’t even require that the evidence related to any particular investigation. If the note were, say, the directions to a nearby meth lab, and he ate it so that the police wouldn’t know he was on the way to buy meth, that would still violate the statute, even if the police had no idea that the meth lab existed or that the suspect wanted to buy meth.

As you can see, I don’t really have my heart in this criminal defense stuff. Maybe this guy will find somebody who can do a better job of it than I, though I think the best of them won’t be able to get him off.

I take your point about how “evidence” of any criminal activity will do and it needn’t be evidence in any case the police were already investigating. It is a good one that didn’t occur to me when I tried to concoct some “innocent” explanation for why he might have wanted to eat the note. (Are “baby mama” and “baby daddy” terms used to finesse the question of marriage?)

Moreover, juries are entitled to evaluate things like facial expressions in determining the credibility of witnesses and other factors. The smirk at :33 does not look to me like a sign of relief that his wife would not find out about an affair; it appears to me much more like an actual smirk, smug satisfaction at having put one over on the police.

Finally, the statute doesn’t even require that the evidence related to any particular investigation. If the note were, say, the directions to a nearby meth lab, and he ate it so that the police wouldn’t know he was on the way to buy meth, that would still violate the statute, even if the police had no idea that the meth lab existed or that the suspect wanted to buy meth.

If it’s raised in court, this argument is grounds for case dismissal… on account of awesome.

The look on the dude’s face is the best part about it.

I think the perp should be given consideration during sentencing, if he agrees as part of his sentencing to community service: a wacky presentation to police officers around the country regarding searches and evidence control. Featuring the arresting officers, and a note-chomping re-inactment.

That Guy: As to the note: could it be said that your evidence is crap?

No chain of custody problems with the evidence?

PatHMV: I think a reasonable jury could conclude that eating the note in those circumstances was intended to prevent the cops from reading it because of potential evidentiary value. As for the “it was a love note from my girlfriend and I didn’t want my baby mama to see it” defense, I don’t think that a reasonable jury would be compelled to find that excuse to create a reasonable doubt.

OK, let’s posit different facts – it wasn’t this guy, it was Tiger Woods. If Tiger had been caught on tape after his accident chewing on a piece of paper, his wife approaching fast and waving a golf club above her head, would you allow as a not implausible explanation that “it was a love note from my girlfriend and I didn’t want my baby mama to see it”? It’s all contextual, isn’t it?

Oren: Sound like he ate his way to a second felony. Section 2921.12, Ohio Statutes is entitled “Tampering with evidence” and states in relevant part as follows:

Maybe he was just hungry, and the note happened to be the only thing nearby? Sounds like a question for the jury. Of course, we should separate the trial for that offense and suppress any information about the bank robbery or arrest as prejudicial.

Do I recall correctly that they found the loot in his car and the dye packs that were included with it?

Yup, he had stained money in the car with the gun. Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

Oren: Sound like he ate his way to a second felony. Section 2921.12, Ohio Statutes is entitled “Tampering with evidence” and states in relevant part as follows:

It’s surmise, isn’t it, that that piece of paper was indeed the note used in commission of the bank heist? Could he be convicted for the felony of “tampering with evidence” if the predicate, that is that it was indeed evidence of something, couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. (I am not so credulouis as to believe that the facts are anything other than what they appear here, but I don’t know if the evidence would be enough for a conviction on tampering.) Perhaps there will be a motion to suppress the videotape, which should fail, but the note was surely definitively suppressed.

(Remember how the Iranian students who seized the American embassy in Tehran painstakingly pieced together the sensitive shreded documents they found? No matter how great their determination, I think we can be sure no one is going to reassemble this note.)

Houston Lawyer: They found the gun in his car.If the defense counsel raised the “where’s the note” defense at trial, I think that this tape would be admissable to show its likely demise.That expression was great though.

I wouldn’t jump to any hasty conclusions about the gun found in the car. Some clever defense attorney may be able to come up with an innocent explanation.

As for the note, you don’t find my alternative explanation for what the note said and the perp’s reason for eating it plausible.

(Do I recall correctly that they found the loot in his car and the dye packs that were included with it? That might hurt his defense.)

If the guy had had any presence of mind(?), he would have disposed of the note rather than shoved it in his pocket. I imagine he wasn’t focused, though, or maybe he wanted to keep it as a memento.

Your first concern is going home intact. The rest is a bonus.

Section 2921.12, Ohio Statutes is entitled “Tampering with evidence” and states in relevant part as follows:

(A) no person, knowing that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress, or is about to be or likely to be instituted, shall do any of the following: (1) Alter, destroy, conceal or remove any record, document, or thing, with the purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such a proceeding or investigation;
(B) whoever violates this section is guilty of tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree.