The 1940 Invisible Man Returns features Vincent Price as Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe, an owner of a coalmine who is falsely convicted for the death of his brother and sentenced to death. The legal system having failed him, Radcliffe’s friend Dr. Frank Griffin, brother to the deceased original Invisible Man, used the invisibly formula on Radcliffe so he could escape execution. Imagine the Fugitive, but the hero is invisible and slowly going insane while looking for the real killer.
It should be clear as day that prison breaks are frowned upon. The punishment for a prison break for a felony is a fine or five years in prison. 18 U.S.C.S. § 751(a). Moreover, those who aide in a prison break can also be subject to imprisonment for up to five years. 18 U.S.C.S. § 752.
Here is the thing for Sir Geoffrey Radcliffe: he was to be executed the day of the escape. Legally speaking, Radcliffe had nothing to lose. Dr. Griffin on the other hand had a lot to lose with imprisonment for aiding in the escape of a felon. Lucky for both, there is a defense for them: Necessity Defense based on Radcliffe’s actual innocence. The necessity defense has a three-part test:
(1) There is no legal alternative to violating the law;
(2) The harm to be prevented is imminent; and
(3) A direct, causal relationship is reasonably anticipated to exist between defendant’s action and the avoidance of harm.
United States v. Benally, 233 F. App’x 864, 868 (10th Cir. 2007).
Sir Radcliffe had no legal alternative to violating the law, as he was going to be executed for a crime he did not commit; his execution was imminent; and Radcliffe escaped prison to avoid being executed for his brother’s death. As society does not want death row prisoners escaping, we have to address the fact that Radcliffe was innocent and that the legal system failed him. Even after escaping, Radcliffe would still need to prove his actual innocence, which would require:
(1) The new evidence will probably change the result if a new trial is granted;
(2) It must have been discovered since the trial;
(3) It must be such as could not have been discovered before trial by the exercise of due diligence;
(4) It must be material to the issue;
(5) It must not be cumulative; and
(6) It must not be merely impeaching or contradictory to the former evidence.
See People v Marino, 99 AD3d 726, 730; People v Tankleff, 49 AD3d at 179.
Radcliffe was successful in learning about the conspiracy to kill his brother and the identity of the killer. The ultimate confessions by two individuals would be “new evidence” that would have changed the result of the trial, that was material, and there was no way to know it. Because if due diligence could have discovered the evidence, both the prosecutor and defense attorney would wish they were invisible before the ethics board.
