What Types of Evidence Can the Federal Government Use to Prove Criminal Intent?
In federal criminal cases, the government has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is only one way to do this: In order to obtain a conviction, the government must present enough convincing and admissible evidence to leave the judge or jury with no choice but to conclude that the defendant committed the crime (or crimes) alleged.
All federal crimes consist of a number of “elements,” and the government must meet its burden of proof with regard to each individual element of each individual alleged offense. For many federal crimes, this includes the element of criminal “intent.” While proving intent is often among the most-challenging aspects of prosecuting a federal case (which makes challenging the element of intent a key defense strategy in many cases), federal prosecutors will potentially have a variety of different types of evidence at their disposal.
Types of Evidence Federal Prosecutors Can Use to Prove Criminal Intent
While it may initially seem difficult to prove a person’s subjective state of mind, there are actually many different types of evidence federal prosecutors can use to prove criminal intent. In fact, most types of evidence that can be used to prove the other elements of a federal offense (i.e. the commission of a prohibited act) can be used to prove intent as well.
Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence
Many people have misconceptions about the differences between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Both types of evidence are admissible in federal cases (subject to the limits on admissibility discussed below), and both types of evidence can be used to help prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is Direct Evidence?
Direct evidence is anything that directly links a person to the commission of a crime. There is no intermediate inference or logical step. A video recording of a murder or bank heist would be an example of direct evidence. So would an email or text message discussing plans to commit a crime in a conspiracy trial.
However, direct evidence does not necessarily have to stand on its own. In fact, it is common for prosecutors to piece together several pieces of direct evidence (along with circumstantial evidence) in order to build a case for a conviction. For example, rather than a single “smoking gun” email, prosecutors may have to present a series of communications and testimony from other co-conspirators in order to sufficiently prove that a defendant participated in a conspiracy to commit a federal crime.
What is Circumstantial Evidence?
In contrast to direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is anything that implies involvement in the commission of a crime, or from which the commission of a crime can be inferred. As plainly stated by the Legal Information Institute (LII), “There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight.” For example, if there is a video recording of the defendant near the scene of a murder or bank heist around the time it was committed (but not a video recording of the crime itself), then in this case the video recoding circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. Likewise, if there are emails between the defendant and an alleged co-conspirator discussing something other than the alleged conspiracy, then the emails would be circumstantial evidence to show that the two individuals were acquainted, but not direct evidence that they jointly conspired to commit a crime.
Confessions and Other Statements Against Interest
In a federal criminal case, the defendant’s own statements can often be the government’s strongest evidence of guilt. A full confession can be enough to convince the jury of a defendant’s guilt, while other, “lesser” statements against interest can help paint a picture of criminal culpability. Specifically regarding the element of intent, a defendant’s own words will often paint the clearest picture of what he or she was thinking when the alleged criminal activity took place.
Witnesses may be able to testify as to a defendant’s mental state at a particular point in time as well. For example, a witness may recall discussions with the defendant in which he or she seemed to clearly understand that the topic of discussion was criminal in nature. Depending upon the nature of the case, witness testimony can either be direct or circumstantial, and it can either be eye witness testimony (from someone who witnessed the crime or events leading up to or succeeding the crime), or it can be testimony from someone who was privy to communications or transactions without visually observing them in person.
Expert Witness Testimony
In certain types of cases – including cases involving criminal healthcare fraud and securities fraud – the government may rely on expert witnesses to explain complex factual issues to the judge or jury. Prosecutors cannot explain issues to the jury directly (for example, a prosecutor could not stand up during the government’s case-in-chief and explain the Medicare billing guidelines or public companies’ disclosure obligations to investors); instead, they must rely on expert witnesses to relay this information in open court. Expert witness testimony can also be used to shed light on the knowledge or intent required to engage in a particular course of conduct.
Video and Audio Recordings
Video and audio recordings can be used as either direct or circumstantial evidence. This includes recordings obtained from private parties, recordings obtained during a federal investigation, and recordings obtained through the discovery process. If the defendant’s recorded statements indicate intent (and the authenticity of the recording can be confirmed), then they can be used as evidence in a federal criminal trial.
Physical and Electronic Records
Documentary evidence, both physical and electronic, can also be used to prove criminal intent. This includes stored communications as well as contracts, notes, bank records, patient files, government filings, and virtually all other forms of documentation.
Along with electronic records, computer data can be used to prove criminal intent in certain cases as well. For example, when seeking to prove criminal healthcare fraud, prosecutors may argue that the defendant’s history of consistently overbilling Medicare for a particular service or test is indicative of intent to defraud the government.
Inadmissibility: Keeping Evidence of Criminal Intent Out of a Federal Trial
When defending against a federal criminal charge, there are two primary ways to challenge the government’s proof of intent: (i) challenging the sufficiency of the government’s evidence; and, (ii) challenging the admissibility of the government’s evidence. When challenging the sufficiency of the government’s evidence, the idea is fairly simple: the goal is simply to convince the jury that the government has not met its burden of proof. When challenging the admissibility of the government’s evidence, the goal is to prevent probative evidence from being presented in court. This will be an effective defense strategy in many cases, and it can be a necessary defense strategy if the government has the evidence it needs to secure a conviction.
There are a number of reasons why evidence of criminal intent may be deemed inadmissible in federal court. These include (but are not limited to):
- Unconstitutional Search or Seizure – Evidence obtained as the result of an unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible. This includes evidence obtained without a warrant (if a warrant was constitutionally required), evidence seized in a search that exceeded the scope of a warrant, and evidence obtained following an unconstitutional search (known as “fruit of the poisonous tree”).
- Unconstitutional Custodial Interrogation – Prior to conducting a custodial interrogation, law enforcement officers must read a suspect his or her rights. This is the Miranda warning with which you may be familiar from crime shows on television. If FBI agents or other federal agents obtain a confession or other statement against interest as a result of an unconstitutional interrogation, then the statement and any evidence obtained in reliance on that statement should be inadmissible in court.
- Unfair Prejudice – In addition to constitutional violations, Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence lists various other reasons why relevant evidence may be inadmissible in a criminal case. One of these reasons is “unfair prejudice.” While the government’s evidence will be inherently prejudicial to the defendant, if it goes beyond the scope of the issues in question, then it may be ripe for exclusion.
- Confusing the Issues or Misleading the Jury – Rule 403 also prohibits federal prosecutors from using evidence that confuses the issues or misleads the jury. For example, if prosecutors attempt to prove that you knew something (and, by inference, acted with intent) with regard to an issue that is not an element of the crime that you allegedly committed, then the risk of confusing or misleading the jury may outweigh the government’s interest in having the evidence presented.
Contact the Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers at Oberheiden, P.C.
Our federal criminal defense lawyers have centuries of combined experience dealing with complex evidentiary issues in federal district court. If you are facing federal criminal charges, call 888-680-1745 or send us your contact information online to put our federal defense team on your side.
Dr. Nick Oberheiden, founder of Oberheiden P.C., focuses his litigation practice on white-collar criminal defense, government investigations, SEC & FCPA enforcement, and commercial litigation.