Fictitious defendants, also known as dummy defendants or allegorical defendants, are those identified by a party or a plaintiff to a lawsuit when the actual defendant cannot or will not be identified.
The practice of using fictitious defendants dates back to the 14th century or earlier. In civil law, in particular, a dummy defendant can often be used in cases where a party is not sure who the real defendant is, for example when pursuing a claim for damages against a group of people.
In modern criminal law, the most common use of fictitious defendants is seen in cases involving mass protests or large civil disobedience campaigns. In these situations, the prosecuting attorney of a state may use a fictitious defendant to represent all of the people who were present at the event in question and who were jointly responsible for the criminal activity.
In some cases, an attorney may want to use a fictitious defendant as a way to practise the skills of a defence attorney. This is when the defence attorney is pretending to represent a party that is not actually in the courtroom, such as a corporation or other entity. By doing this, the defence attorney is able to gain a better understanding of the law and how to better represent someone in court.
Although using fictitious defendants is a centuries-old practice, it has recently come under scrutiny due to questions about its legality. Opponents claim that fictitious defendants are a tool for defendants to avoid responsibility for their actions, while supporters argue that it is simply a way to create a pathway to justice in cases where a responsible party cannot be identified.
The Debate Over Fictitious Defendants
Fictitious defendants are a controversial legal tool and one that continues to be contested in legal circles. While some argue that its use is an effective way to pursue justice, others believe it violates established laws and precedent.
The use of fictitious defendants will likely remain a contested issue for some time. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, so will the debate over this controversial practice.