In a good number of criminal cases, we are confronted with situations where the defendants come up with claims to the effect that they are being framed up (by the prosecution witnesses). Such claims shouldn’t be taken lightly. In most of the cases where innocent people end up being wrongly imprisoned, it is usually on account being framed up. That is something anyone who has tried counseling people who are wrongly imprisoned will aver to. It therefore becomes necessary for judges and members of juries to come up with a way of trying to figure out whether or not the witnesses are indeed trying to frame the defendant.
One way in which you can tell if the witnesses in a criminal case are trying to frame the defendant is by observing the consistency of their evidence. Truthful evidence shouldn’t have major inconsistencies. But then again, if evidence is too consistent, then it shows that the witnesses may have been coached, with the intention of framing the defendant.
Another way in which you can tell if the witnesses in a criminal case are trying to frame the defendant is by observing the manner in which they answer questions, especially when it comes to cross examination. If they are too evasive or too defensive, that should raise red flags.
Yet another way in which you can tell whether the witnesses in a criminal case are trying to frame the defendant is by assessing the plausibility (or implausibility) of their storylines. Strange things happen in this world, and truth is often stranger than fiction. Still, there are things that are just too implausible to happen, on a balance on probabilities.
In the final analysis, you need to understand that the biggest injustice is that of sending an innocent person to a nasty jail. As a judge or as a member of a jury, you should do everything in your power to ensure that you minimize the possibility of sending an innocent person to jail. It is better to free a guilty person, than to convict an innocent person.