Red Flags to Look for to Detect False Accusers in Louisiana Criminal Cases:

Blog post written by Attorney Philip B. Adams

            People often lie. We have all been lied to by someone at some point or another. Throughout my time in defending people charged with crimes in Louisiana, I have encountered many false accusation cases. Disappointingly, these false accusations are not uncovered by investigators in the beginning of the cases due to a failure to adequately investigate each case. Investigators in criminal cases have a duty to investigate whether a crime occurred and determine whether an accuser is telling the truth. Investigators must faithfully adhere to the presumption of innocence and seek to determine if guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. An investigator should never just take someone’s word at face value. After all, the job of competent investigation does not end once an allegation is made but rather is just beginning. To ensure that only the guilty are apprehended, an investigator has a moral and professional duty to remain impartial and unbiased. Considering the possibility that an accuser may not be telling the truth is one way to ensure that an investigator conducts a competent investigation in the search for truth in every criminal case. Unfortunately, not every accuser in a criminal case is truthful, and investigators must always look for red flags that indicate that an accuser is lying or distorting the truth. The following are some red flags to look for when investigating a criminal case and indicate the possibility of untruthfulness:

1. Motive:  Every person who brings a false accusation has a motivation to do so. While the existence of a possible motive to lie does not prove that a criminal allegation is false, a possible motive certainly provides ample reason to conduct further investigation to determine the truth or falsity of a criminal allegation.
2. History of mental illness:  Many people with mental illnesses do not lie and bring false accusations. However, mental illness can predispose a person to suffer from paranoia, to not be capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy, etc. and thus lead to a false accusation. Sometimes, complainants are psychotic or delusional and may make several different complaints that are often wildly implausible.
3. History of past false reporting:  A person who has a history of bringing false reports is someone who should be viewed with extreme skepticism by law enforcement officers when conducting an investigation. People who repeatedly bring false accusations lack a moral consciousness and tend to be highly manipulative. They can also present themselves as being highly believable. To avoid being duped by a serial false accuser, police should always run a criminal background check on every accuser in a criminal case and also run a check for all previous reports, complaints, and allegations brought by each accuser in every criminal case. While taking this extra step with each accuser will involve time and effort, the result will lead to fewer innocent people being victimized by serial false accusers.
4. Jealousy towards someone:  Sometimes, a false accuser is just jealous of another person and seeks to “level the playing field” by upending that other person’s life. Perhaps the other person got a great job promotion and makes more money, got married and the accuser is alone, is well liked by the community but the accuser is not, etc. The possibilities for jealousy are endless, and a flame of jealousy can lead to a false report and ruin another person’s life.
5. Recent break-up in a relationship:  This type of red flag is usually easier to spot than many other types of red flags. Often, when one partner ends a relationship, the person “dumped” may get angry or jealous and seek to get revenge. When passion and emotions mix with jealousy or anger, they often produce a toxic brew that leads to a false accusation. These accusations often arise in the context of one partner leaving a partner for someone else. One simple way to guard against this type of false accusation is for law enforcement officers to inquire about the relationship status of all accusers and witnesses. If, during an investigation, an officer learns that the accuser was dumped by the alleged perpetrator, the officer should be vigilant about conducting a detailed investigation to ensure that an innocent person is not roped into the justice system.
6. Recent failure/humiliation:  A person who brings false reports may have recently experienced a significant failure or humiliation, such as a job loss, an arrest, etc., and thus seek to restore self-worth, triggering a psychological desire to get even with the person(s) who initiated the failure or humiliation.
7. Problems with finances:  A person who is asset poor and/or debt heavy may have a strong desire to bring a false accusation against someone, especially someone who is of high income or status in society. This type of false accuser figures that he or she can then obtain money from the alleged perpetrator through the threat of criminal prosecution, the filing of a civil lawsuit, and/or media scrutiny.
8. Drug/alcohol/gambling addiction:  People who suffer from drug, alcohol, or a gambling addiction are often so consumed by the addiction that they battle that they will often stop at nothing to “get high” or get another “fix.” They figure that by bringing a false accusation they might obtain money or some type of material gain from the person accused to further satisfy the addiction.
9. Pressured reporting by a partner, family member, friend, or law enforcement officer:  Especially in cases involving serious crimes, such as murders, rapes, and molestations, witnesses being questioned by law enforcement officers can often feel intense pressure to lay blame on someone else in an effort to satisfy a coercive officer or an inquisitorial family member or friend. One sign of pressured reporting that warrants further investigation is a witness who is initially reluctant to report an alleged crime but later reports under pressure. Often, these witnesses make reports to provide an explanation for illegal behavior they have engaged in, explain lateness or staying out past a curfew, explain an absence, explain bad grades, explain an STD or pregnancy, etc.
10. A desire for sympathy or empathy:  Some people make false complaints to get attention or sympathy. They often desire attention or sympathy from friends, relatives, and/or authorities. These people usually have strong feelings of inadequacy and crave concern and support. They may have tried other ways of getting attention, like faking an illness, and been unsuccessful. They may then feel that by upping the ante, they are more likely to succeed in obtaining the sympathy that they seek.
11. Inconsistencies and embellishments in retellings:  Individuals who make false allegations often are unable to keep track of what story they have previously told. When being subjected to repeated questioning, these individuals may tell different versions of the same story each time they are asked. Often, the inconsistencies and embellishments in retellings are not minor but significant and internally contradictory.
12. Exact retellings:  Just as inconsistencies and embellishments in retellings can be indicative of false reporting, exact retellings can be too. If an alleged victim tells the same story multiple times in exactly the same way with the same details and evidence, these retellings may be indicative of rehearsal. Some minor variation in details is expected when recounting a story multiple times, so exact retelling is a red flag to watch for because it runs counter to how human psychology and memory recall generally operate.
13. Consistency with previously reported, similar crimes:  This red flag is similar to the red flag involving a desire for sympathy or empathy. Often, people with low self-worth may hear or read a crime complaint that previously occurred. They may then bring essentially the same accusation against someone and parrot media accounts because they don’t know real facts about a fake crime.
14. Inability to describe a suspect and/or crime:  An inability to give a description of one’s alleged attacker and/or give details about the alleged crime is a major red flag. Unless a victim was unconscious or mentally impaired, the accuser should be able to give some details about a suspect and/or crime that actually occurred.
15. Inconsistencies with other evidence in the case:  If an accuser’s account of an alleged crime is inconsistent with other evidence in a case, any inconsistency should be further investigated to determine if the inconsistency has a plausible explanation or is indicative of lying on the part of the accuser. For instance, if an accuser says that she was vaginally raped by a certain man, and he ejaculated inside her, but no sperm or DNA associated with that man is found inside the accuser by law enforcement officers, the accuser may be lying.
16. No witnesses/surveillance in the case even though witnesses/surveillance should exist:  If a witness reports having been victimized in a location where other people must have been present or surveillance was present, but no witnesses or surveillance can be found that corroborates the witness’s story, the witness may be lying. For example, if a witness says that she was robbed at a specific location in a grocery store and during a specific time range, and investigators determine that a surveillance camera was working and captured the location and duration of the alleged crime, but no crime was observed, the witness may be fabricating an allegation.
17. Injury to oneself, crime staging, and planted evidence:  Injury to oneself is often not apparent and can only be determined through the help of crime scene reconstruction and/or medical science. The same principle is true for crime scene staging. Discovering planted evidence also raises a serious red flag that demands extreme caution when evaluating the entirety of a case. Often, if one charge in a case involves planted evidence, the other charges in the same case may also involve planted evidence that may not be readily apparent absent further investigation.