The setting may sound like fiction, but it is very much a true story that is taking place right here in Cook County. The victim’s husband says it was a tragic car accident; the prosecutor insists it was murder.
In 1973, a 19-year-old woman died after sustaining a cervical spine fracture. The coroner’s report listed the cause of death as “accidental.” Now, prosecutors say they have uncovered evidence that the woman’s now 76-year-old husband killed his wife and staged the accident to collect a $100,000 insurance payout. During opening statements, prosecutors insisted that the husband lived a double life. “He married her because he wanted to kill her,” pronounced the Assistant State’s Attorney. In support of this theory, prosecutors called investigators who question the results of their own inquiry from so many years ago. For example, the patrolman who arrived at the scene testified that the woman’s body had no grass or dirt on it, even though it was found in a grassy area. Moreover, the coroner now says that blunt force trauma to the head, and not a fractured spine, killed her.
Defense attorneys counter that the husband cheated on his girlfriend by marrying his deceased wife, but that he did not want to kill her. He did not even know about the insurance policy, they claim.
Is Time a Friend or Enemy in a Chicago Criminal Case?
Given the high burden of proof in a murder or any other criminal case, proving anything in court is difficult for prosecutors. This responsibility becomes almost impossible in a case for which there is absolutely no physical evidence.
In the above case, the prosecutor cannot produce the victim’s clothes and show that they were clean even though the victim was found in a grassy area. Instead, the prosecutor can only produce a witness who says “I do not remember seeing any dirt on the body, but that was four-and-a-half decades ago.” That is not exactly compelling evidence.
There is no statute of limitations on murder, so it is not terribly unusual for cases of this sort to be prosecuted, but it is rare. Although most murders are not solved at a CSI-type pace, they are solved fairly quickly. These cases can also very quickly grow cold.
On this subject, much of the CSI-type evidence that prosecutors use, such as tire tracks and footprints, have very little scientific basis. Circumstantial evidence of this nature is usually enough to get TV bad guys to confess, but it is nowhere near enough to convict a person in a real courtroom, at least in most cases.
Back to the question of time. The longer an investigation goes on, the more evidence disappears. Witnesses move away and are outside the court’s subpoena range. At the same time, they often lose interest in the case and are therefore not willing to voluntarily cooperate. If they are available to testify, their memories have faded. If they have no independent recollection of the event, they are not legally able to give testimony. Tactically, this lack of memory is quite difficult, but not impossible, to show.
Many other cases, most notably theft cases, are like this as well. The prosecutor must normally produce the “owner” of the goods in court. Anyone with a superior right of possession can be an “owner” in this context, so these individuals are fairly easy to find. If a witness becomes unavailable at the last minute, which often happens, prosecutors are often ready to talk about a deal rather than go back and start at square one with a new witness.
Team Up with Experienced Attorneys
As time goes by, the possibility of a guilty verdict usually decreases. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.
(image courtesy of Rene Bohmer)