Can You Prove You've Been Framed? The Case of the Crack in the Wallet

  • Thread starter Thread starter LightbulbSun
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hypothetical scenario of a person being framed for possession of crack cocaine found in their wallet. Participants explore the implications of proving such a claim, particularly through the potential use of fingerprint analysis and other evidence. The conversation touches on legal responsibilities, the reliability of forensic methods, and the broader context of drug possession laws.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that testing for fingerprints on the bag of crack could help determine if the individual was framed.
  • Others argue that finding fingerprints on the bag would indicate guilt, while the absence of prints does not definitively prove framing due to possible use of gloves or smudging.
  • There is a viewpoint that if the individual is in a financially precarious situation, it is unlikely they are dealing drugs.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the feasibility of lifting fingerprints from the bag or wallet, especially after being handled or stored in a pocket.
  • One participant raises the idea that the individual has a legal responsibility to be aware of what they carry, although this is acknowledged as a debatable expectation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the likelihood of proving the framing claim or the implications of fingerprint evidence. Multiple competing views remain regarding the reliability of forensic evidence and the legal responsibilities of the individual involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainty about the effectiveness of fingerprint analysis on the specific materials involved and the legal interpretations of possession and responsibility.

LightbulbSun
Messages
64
Reaction score
2
This question arose from an episode of Cops tonight. The guy was caught with a bag of crack in his wallet, and when questioned about it he says he thinks he had been set up. Now saying this were actually the case, someone slipping a bag of crack into his wallet to set him up, how would they be able to prove this? Could they test for fingerprints on the bag?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He is out of luck. If it was just in his car, then maybe. But in his wallet is quite a stretch. Not jury is going to fall for that one.
 
wildman said:
He is out of luck. If it was just in his car, then maybe. But in his wallet is quite a stretch. Not jury is going to fall for that one.
But what I'm asking is could they test his claim by testing for fingerprints on the bag of crack?
 
Probably these chemical leave traces in your body. I guess, as a first step, he could prove he does not use it for himself. That would not put him out of selling it though.
 
It's obvious...the guy is guilty and he's lying.
 
Leah said:
It's obvious...the guy is guilty and he's lying.

In most cases that's probably the case but many druggies would not hesitate to ditch their drugs on a friend if they believed they were about to get stopped by the cops.
 
They could test for fingerprints on the bag and wallet.
 
brewnog said:
They could test for fingerprints on the bag and wallet.

If they found his fingerprints, that would clearly show he was lying and had touched the bag, so it wasn't someone else putting it there. But, if they don't find any prints on it, that doesn't necessarily mean he was framed...he could have been wearing gloves or the prints just got smudged beyond identification from rubbing around in the wallet. I suppose only if they found the same prints on the wallet as on the bag inside and none of his on the bag, it might give some credence to the claim. Wouldn't necessarily prove he'd been framed, but might raise enough doubt in court to get him acquitted. Afterall, it's not like you're going to get the dealer to testify as a witness of who bought the drugs from him. :rolleyes: Of course, if you're really trying to frame someone, it's unlikely you'd do it without gloves on.
 
If the guy has so little money that he can barely afford to eat, he probably does not deal drugs.
 
  • #10
There's also the fact that they probably couldn't lift fingerprints off those items.
 
  • #11
There are claims that reliable lie detectors are coming.
 
  • #12
Hydroshock said:
There's also the fact that they probably couldn't lift fingerprints off those items.

They could probably get them off a plastic bag, but not so sure about the wallet once it was slipped into his pocket where the fabric of his pants probably rubbed any good fingerprints off.

As the saying goes, "Possession is 9/10 of the law." Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad.
 
  • #13
Ok, so I was correct in thinking they could get fingerprints off the bag. My stepdad told me they couldn't.

So pretty much if this guy was framed completely he'd be out of luck? That really sucks.
 
  • #14
But isn't it partially his responsibility to be conscious of what he is carrying on his body at all times?

I'm not saying that its a REASONABLE expectation, but rather that it is a legal one.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K