How would a "Q framed me" defense work out in court?

[marsh8472]

Say in a federation court where someone needs to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a case where the evidence overwhelmingly suggested someone was guilty. Then if they claimed that Q has framed them and used their omnipotent powers to make it appear that he/she is obviously guilty when in fact they actually were not guilty, how would such a case turn out?

 

[The Wormhole]

It wouldn't work. If Q had a grudge against someone enough to want them put away in a Federation prison, he'd have generated enough evidence to have them put away. As far as Federation courts are concerned, there's sufficient evidence to put someone away and their only defense is an omnipotent entity is responsible. Unless Q himself actually shows up and admits the truth, which why would he if he's pissed off at them to frame them for a crime and generate false evidence, the "Q Did It" defense ain't gonna do anyone a damn bit of help.

Although, if Q had a serious enough grudge against someone, I'm sure he could devise a more severe punishment than sending them to a 24th century Federation prison.

 

[marsh8472]

It wouldn't work. If Q had a grudge against someone enough to want them put away in a Federation prison, he'd have generated enough evidence to have them put away. As far as Federation courts are concerned, there's sufficient evidence to put someone away and their only defense is an omnipotent entity is responsible. Unless Q himself actually shows up and admits the truth, which why would he if he's pissed off at them to frame them for a crime and generate false evidence, the "Q Did It" defense ain't gonna do anyone a damn bit of help.

Although, if Q had a serious enough grudge against someone, I'm sure he could devise a more severe punishment than sending them to a 24th century Federation prison.

The defense can prove Q's existence and capabilities. Then claim that all of the evidence like physical evidence and eye witness testimonies are illusions created by Q. Would the prosecution be able to disprove that theory? Or focus on proving it's an unreasonable theory?

 

[The Wormhole]

Again, if Q were pissed off at someone enough to want them sent to prison, he'd have the court rigged so that conviction is the only option for the person in question. They could try and say "Q did it" all they like, but if Q really did do it, that defense isn't going to get them anywhere.

 

[Greg Cox]

Beats the old "It was my double from the Mirror Universe" defense.

Or the "the transporter split me into two people" defense.

Or the "my ex-girlfriend took over my body" defense.

Or "it was my android duplicate" defense.

Or . . ..

Remind me not to become a Starfleet prosecutor in my next life.

 

[1001001]

“Q framed me”, in the absence of any other evidence, would not rise to the level of creating “reasonable doubt”, anymore than “Jesus framed me” or “Superman framed me”.

 

[marsh8472]

“Q framed me”, in the absence of any other evidence, would not rise to the level of creating “reasonable doubt”, anymore than “Jesus framed me” or “Superman framed me”.

But unlike with Jesus and Superman they can actually prove Q exists and show what he is capable of. If Q can erase all evidence of their involvement and plant sufficient evidence against someone how is that different than a case being dismissed due to police tampering

 

[The Wormhole]

If Q can erase all evidence of their involvement and plant sufficient evidence against someone how is that different than a case being dismissed due to police tampering

Because Q can cover his tracks and not leave any kind of clues or evidence of his involvement.

 

[marsh8472]

Because Q can cover his tracks and not leave any kind of clues or evidence of his involvement.

Yeah which would explain why there is no evidence. A lack of evidence for this theory would not disprove this theory.

reasonable doubt is defined this way according to the supreme court

The Supreme Court suggested that the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be explained to juries as follows:[6]

• The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence.
• The burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused.
• A reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice, and instead, is based on reason and common sense.
• Reasonable doubt is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence.
• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.
• More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.

 

[The Wormhole]

You're forgetting Q has the ability to influence the court to take his side on things. He can eliminate reasonable doubt and arrange so that the person is convicted anyway.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Can Q actually control minds?

 

[marsh8472]

You're forgetting Q has the ability to influence the court to take his side on things. He can eliminate reasonable doubt and arrange so that the person is convicted anyway.

Yeah but he may not do that too. Or should someone who feels uninfluenced by Q assume that Q must not be involved since they feel uninfluenced? I'm kind of thinking from a desperate criminals point of view that tries to use this as a defense to get away with a crime but it could also be a legitimate scenario that's just impossible to prove. It would be unfortunate for the person in a situation like that.

 

[marsh8472]

Can Q actually control minds?

Yeah like Amanda did to Riker in "True Q". I'm thinking a judge would have to ignore the Q defense that lacks positive evidence otherwise everyone could just claim the Q defense and get away with anything they want. Doing so would be an acknowledgement that the court system has its limitations and if they're being framed by Q then they're just screwed which doesn't seem very just to me. But not so sure about a Jury outcome. A jury might accept that as reasonable doubt.

 

[1001001]

A jury might accept that as reasonable doubt.

No they wouldn't.

 

[Jayson1]

First you have to create a legit motive for Q wanting to frame you to begin with. the biggest one being why he would care enough to do this. Or why he would be worried about facing some kind of federation punishment to make him need a patsy. Granted you can never be 100% but it's like how dumb it is in "Air Bud" that they let the dog play basketball. just because it's not written in the rules that dogs can't play. At some point your defense would be so unrealistic that you wouldn't need to be 100% sure.

Jason

 

[marsh8472]

First you have to create a legit motive for Q wanting to frame you to begin with. the biggest one being why he would care enough to do this. Or why he would be worried about facing some kind of federation punishment to make him need a patsy. Granted you can never be 100% but it's like how dumb it is in "Air Bud" that they let the dog play basketball. just because it's not written in the rules that dogs can't play. At some point your defense would be so unrealistic that you wouldn't need to be 100% sure.

Jason

They could say a lot of things to make up a motive like the person embarrassed Q then Q wanted to punish them by making them look bad in the eyes of their own species.

"The Q and the Grey"
Q: I'm lonely.
JANEWAY: Lonely?
Q: Oh, I know it's hard to believe, but I've been single for billions of years. It was fun at first, gallivanting around the galaxy, using my omnipotence to impress females of every species. The fact of the matter is, it left me empty. I want someone to love me for myself. I guess what I'm saying is, I want a relationship. I just thought if you and I had a child, it would give me that kind of stability and security that I've been missing.

The story could be that they saw Q hitting on someone and getting rejected then this guy laughed and ridiculed Q afterwards. The person Q was hitting on has no memory of being hit on by Q because he wiped her memory and erased all evidence of the encounter like they erased memory here:

"Death Wish"
Q: Your Captain Honour, I am here to argue for the majesty of life. What it means to us to be alive. A Q's life takes him to all corners of the universe. This Q's life has touched and affected many, many others, including some on your own homeworld. With your permission, I would like to call some of those people whose lives have been changed by this Q.
JANEWAY: You want to bring people here from Earth?
Q: I promise it won't impact the timeline, and no one will remember ever having being here after I send them back.

A motive can be made up and but may not be a provable motive. Or maybe there was no motive and Q was just bored like when Junior Q started a war between the Vojeans and Wyngari

 

[JirinPanthosa]

They'd still be guilty. Reasonable Doubt does not mean Shadow of a Doubt. For the Q defense to work, you'd need to provide a reasonable argument that Q would specifically target you.

 

[Kytee]

If I was the a jury member , the 'it was Q' defense would not create reasonable doubt in my mind. Even accepting that Q is capable of fabricating the evidence, I could not see any motivation for him to do so.

In a way, its no different then anyone who goes to court today and claims he they were framed by the police. The police are capable, with enough collusion , of framing someone. But just claiming that is what happened , with no supporting evidence, would be unlikely to get a person declared not guilty.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Let's say Picard wakes up on some Federation planet in 2374 with a dead person nearby. Video clearly shows him diverting his ship to said planet and beaming down and murdering that person, yet he has no recollection of it.

Picard does not remember any of the last few days and states that Q had said something cryptic about testing the limits of the Federation justice system before he blacked out. Truth detection systems, a la TOS, says that Picard does not believe himself to be lying, and while an abundance of physical evidence exists that he laid in the course and physically killed this person, psychological profiles and plenty of character witnesses defend him.

It is very likely that Picard was possessed these last few days, which undoubtedly has precedence in Federation legal history. Picard has a known documented history with Q. He has turned himself in and is not lying. In this instance, I think a jury would find him Not Guilty and declare the case beyond the purview of Federation jurisprudence (similar to the Douwd situation).

The Federation and Picard would try to compensate the victim's family in some manner, and Picard would get pretty salty when Q shows up again. Q isn't a murderer either (although he probably doesn't care one way or another), so he might restore the victim back to life if Picard presses him enough to do so.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

See, in Star Trek, things which sound like the ramblings of an insane person can actually be 100% true.

If the point of this frame-up were an otherwise-hands-off experiment to have the defendant and all of the other parties involved react and speak just as they would normally - and for the participants to experience the trial in real time and space - to have it actually happen, not be a simulation - then I could see Q doing that for entertainment and curiosity's sake.

I guess it depends on whether you can find a jury pool/judge panel who believes in the possibility and likelihood of such things. Depending on the personal knowledge/experiences of these folks, they might be more hesitant to buy it ("Come on!") or not ("Sure. Happened to me/my sister/the Jones family just last week.")