Friday the 13th and Legal Myths: Debunking Common Misconceptions
It's Friday, September 13, 2024.
Friday the 13th has long been a symbol of superstition and fear, a day when many believe bad luck runs rampant. In a similar vein, the legal world is rife with myths and misconceptions that can mislead students, lawyers, and the general public alike. Let’s take a moment to debunk some of the most common legal myths and provide clarity on a few key concepts that often get distorted.
1. Myth: "The Insanity Defense is a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card"
One of the most enduring myths in law is that defendants frequently claim insanity to avoid punishment, and that the insanity defense is an easy way out. In reality, this defense is both rare and difficult to prove.
🌎 Reality: The insanity defense is used in less than 1% of criminal cases and is successful in only about 25% of those cases. To successfully claim insanity, the defendant must typically prove that, at the time of the crime, they were unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to a severe mental illness or defect. Legal standards, like the M'Naghten Rule, set a high bar for this defense.
📚 Substantive Review: Under the M'Naghten Rule, the defendant must prove that they were either unaware of what they were doing or unable to comprehend that what they were doing was wrong. This is a high threshold to meet, requiring expert testimony and significant evidence, making it far from a surefire way to avoid punishment. (Check out my previous blog post, "Insanity Defenses (and How I Keep Them Straight)," to learn more about the M'Naghten Rule, as well as the Irresistible Impulse, Durham, and Model Penal Code tests.)
2. Myth: "Police Must Always Read You Your Miranda Rights"
Movies and TV shows often depict a dramatic reading of Miranda rights at the time of every arrest, leading to the belief that if the police don’t recite these rights, a case will be thrown out.
🌎 Reality: Police are required to read you your Miranda rights only when two conditions are met: (1) you are in custody, and (2) you are being interrogated. If you are not both in custody and under interrogation, Miranda warnings are not required. Additionally, failure to read Miranda rights doesn’t automatically result in a dismissal of charges—it may simply lead to the exclusion of statements made during interrogation from being used at trial.
📚 Substantive Review: The key issue is whether the suspect was subject to "custodial interrogation." If no interrogation took place, or the defendant was not in custody, there is no requirement for Miranda warnings. Also, other evidence (besides the suspect's statements) may still be admissible, so a case doesn’t automatically fall apart without a Miranda warning.
3. Myth: "You Can Legally Use Lethal Force to Protect Your Property"
This myth is often heard in the context of "stand your ground" laws or "castle doctrine" defenses. Some believe that they are legally entitled to use deadly force simply to protect their belongings.
🌎 Reality: While certain jurisdictions allow for the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others, the use of deadly force to protect property alone is generally not permitted. The castle doctrine may allow deadly force if you are defending yourself in your home, but the key factor is the threat to life, not the value of property.
📚 Substantive Review: Deadly force is typically only justified when there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Merely defending property (especially outside the home) usually does not meet this threshold. Students should review the nuances of self-defense laws and how they vary across jurisdictions, particularly the differences between “stand your ground” laws and the more limited castle doctrine.
4. Myth: "You Can’t Be Prosecuted Again After an Acquittal: Double Jeopardy Protects You"
The double jeopardy rule, often cited as an absolute protection, is commonly misunderstood. Many believe that once acquitted, a person can never be retried for the same offense.
🌎 Reality: The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense by the same sovereign. However, there are exceptions. For example, a person acquitted in state court can still be prosecuted by federal authorities for the same act if it violates federal law. This is known as the "dual-sovereignty" doctrine. Similarly, civil suits (like wrongful death actions) can proceed even after a criminal acquittal.
📚 Substantive Review: Double jeopardy protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense by the same government entity. However, a separate sovereign (such as a different state or the federal government) can still prosecute for the same act under its laws. The distinction between criminal and civil cases also allows for further legal actions even after an acquittal in criminal court.
5. Myth: "Entrapment Means the Police Tricked Me, So I Can’t Be Convicted"
There’s a common misconception that if police deceive a defendant in any way, it’s automatically considered entrapment, and the case will be dismissed.
🌎 Reality: Entrapment is a valid defense only when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime they were not otherwise predisposed to commit. Merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime, or using undercover operations, does not constitute entrapment.
📚 Substantive Review: Entrapment occurs when the government originates the idea of a crime and persuades a defendant to commit it, and the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime. Law enforcement providing the means to commit a crime, like a controlled buy in a drug case, does not usually qualify as entrapment unless they actively induced the crime. This defense is a tough sell and requires proving a lack of predisposition.
Just like superstitions on Friday the 13th, legal myths can cloud judgment and cause unnecessary anxiety. Knowing the law is about understanding both the facts and the fine print. Don’t let misconceptions lead you astray—whether in law school, during bar prep, or in practice. Keep things simple, review the basics, and you’ll avoid the real “horrors” of misunderstanding legal principles.
Comments