In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence, and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence. Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt".[1]
Consciousness of guilt law and legal definition:[2]
Criminal defense attorney Stephen G. Rodriguez describes it thus:[3]
The New York State Unified Court System discusses false alibis (in the context of "consciousness of guilt") as a form of admissible evidence:[4]
Haim Cohn explains the concept:[5]
When a defendant acts guilty, some of their actions reveal evidence of deceit, a consciousness of guilt, and their guilty state of mind.[6] This may imply that the defendant committed, or intended to commit, a crime. Typical psychological defenses exhibited by guilty suspects include denial, rationalisation, minimisation, and projection of blame onto the victim.[7]
A defendant may introduce innocent explanations of conduct that counter accusations of consciousness of guilt, and a "jury should be advised of the limited probativevalue of 'consciousness of guilt' evidence".
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right against self-incrimination. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Doyle v. Ohio (2013), a defendant's post-arrest silence may not be introduced by the government as evidence of the defendant's guilt, and the prosecution may not comment on the defendant's refusal to testify. The Supreme Court has not explicitly decided whether a defendant's pre-arrest silence may be introduced as substantive evidence of guilt (i.e., may be used in the government's case-in-chief, even if the defendant chooses not to testify). A three-justice plurality of the Court, in Salinas v. Texas (2013), held that such silence was admissible where the defendant did not expressly invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights.[11]
Some commentators have noted that consciousness-of-guilt evidence may be used in international criminal law.[12]
DOJ attorney Dan E. Stigall uses Raskolnikov, the fictional protagonist of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, to discuss "consciousness of guilt" and how "such evidence can be used to demonstrate an accused's culpability":[13]
Shakespearean scholar A. C. Bradley describes Macbeth's "consciousness of guilt" as "stronger in him than the consciousness of failure; and it keeps him in a perpetual agony of restlessness, and forbids him simply to droop and pine. His mind is 'full of scorpions.' He cannot sleep."[14]
In Shakespeare's Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" describes overreactions to accusations as an expression of a consciousness of guilt.[15] [16]