|
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported with a warrant
put
out on the man.
Eventually the man returns to town and is arrested.
Only when in jail the woman goes to visit him to tell him off for the
crime and he works his charm and gets the woman to start falling for
her in jail.
Captivated by his charms, the woman continues to visit him falling
for
him.
She ends up going to the District Attorney saying she wants the
charges against him dropped.
The DA says once the case is presented to their office and is
accepted
they do not intend to drop the case and she will be called in to
testify and expected to tell the truth.
Continuing to visit the man in jail, he works his charms on her more
to the point to where he asks her to marry him. Now in love with
him, she agrees.
He has her bring a minister to the jail and they are married.
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer
plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
--------------------------
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Yes, this is a work of fiction but knowing very little about the law,
we need help on where to go with the plot from here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
:)
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:36:38 -0700 (PDT), menudoboy13@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported with a warrant
put
out on the man.
Eventually the man returns to town and is arrested.
Only when in jail the woman goes to visit him to tell him off for the
crime and he works his charm and gets the woman to start falling for
her in jail.
Captivated by his charms, the woman continues to visit him falling
for
him.
She ends up going to the District Attorney saying she wants the
charges against him dropped.
The DA says once the case is presented to their office and is
accepted
they do not intend to drop the case and she will be called in to
testify and expected to tell the truth.
Continuing to visit the man in jail, he works his charms on her more
to the point to where he asks her to marry him. Now in love with
him, she agrees.
He has her bring a minister to the jail and they are married.
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer
plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
--------------------------
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Yes, this is a work of fiction but knowing very little about the law,
we need help on where to go with the plot from here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
:)
Which tv show was this on? Matlock?
Marriage does not always protect against criminal procedings.
As the crime was committed before any marriage issue took place, her
testimony and the video tape would both be admissable. She could be
charged with perjury if she does not testify truthfully.
|
| |
| |
In article
<1cc955d7-510f-4b7a-b341-06be6a815d3a@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
menudoboy13@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported with a warrant
put
out on the man.
Eventually the man returns to town and is arrested.
Only when in jail the woman goes to visit him to tell him off for the
crime and he works his charm and gets the woman to start falling for
her in jail.
Captivated by his charms, the woman continues to visit him falling
for
him.
She ends up going to the District Attorney saying she wants the
charges against him dropped.
The DA says once the case is presented to their office and is
accepted
they do not intend to drop the case and she will be called in to
testify and expected to tell the truth.
Continuing to visit the man in jail, he works his charms on her more
to the point to where he asks her to marry him. Now in love with
him, she agrees.
He has her bring a minister to the jail and they are married.
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer
plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
--------------------------
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
Absolutely.
Yes, this is a work of fiction but knowing very little about the law,
we need help on where to go with the plot from here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
:)
Why wouldn't a video showing a crime be admissible in court? There is
no requirement that the victim testify in any given case.
|
| |
| |
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported [but she doesn't
testify at trial]
If the woman was still under the stress of the incident, whatever she said
about it at the time might have been admissible at trial, despite her
absence. I've seen numerous convictions based on "excited utterance"
testimony obtained and upheld on appeal (though the Crawford SCOTUS case
could conceivably keep the tx out).
|
| |
| |
On Mar 20, 3:36=A0pm, menudobo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Here is the plot:
Woman falls in front of man with all sorts of money spilling out of
her purse.
Man mugs the money from the woman leaving her tied up in an alley.
He leaves town with the money.
Woman is found by someone and the crime is reported with a warrant
put
out on the man.
Eventually the man returns to town and is arrested.
Only when in jail the woman goes to visit him to tell him off for the
crime and he works his charm and gets the woman to start falling for
her in jail.
?? "...falling for *her* in jail."?
What? The Man Mugged her Money; Now Has The Requisite Funds for a
Sex Change; Leaves Town only to return to Woo his/her Lesbian Victim??
Boy Howdy, that's Some Plot....
Captivated by his charms, the woman continues to visit him falling
for
him.
She ends up going to the District Attorney saying she wants the
charges against him dropped.
The DA says once the case is presented to their office and is
accepted
they do not intend to drop the case and she will be called in to
testify and expected to tell the truth.
Yuh... [SnapShot] A Crime Victim is NOT The *Singular* Victim of a
Crime... When One Commits a Crime, *Particulary* a *Crime Against The
Person,* The Evil Doer *also* is Commiting a Crime Against *We The
People*... And *We the People* Attain Identical Rights to Prosecute
ALL Crimes so commited against Us... We... Whatever...
Thus, It Matters NOT One Whit IF The Singular Victim wishes NOT To
Press Charges... IF *The People's* Attorney [HARRUMmmmph] in his/her
Infinite Wisdom [\HARRUMmmmph] decides to Try The Suspect, By, In, Of,
and For The Interests Of *The People*, he/she's GONNA Be Tried...
Continuing to visit the man in jail, he works his charms on her more
to the point to where he asks her to marry him. =A0 Now in love with
him, she agrees.
So The Sex Change didn't take? It Grew Back?
He has her bring a minister to the jail and they are married.
Now that the woman is his wife, the man's court appointed lawyer
plans
on saying that since the woman is the man's wife she does not have to
testify against her husband in court on the crime.
No... NOT Gonna Work...
First, there was NO Spousal Relationship w/ Attendant Spousal
Privilege *At The Time of The Crime*...
Second, I'll Bet $50 that EVERYWHERE [ALL Jurisdictions Wherein]
that a Spouse *can* assert a Spousal Privilege, that That Privilege
CANNOT Be *Retroactively Asserted*...
Third, In Colorado, [and Another $50 Bets that This Is The Same
Nearly EVERYWHERE] "Spousal Privilege" is NOT Available in
Circumstances Of "Domestic Violence," "Child Abuse," and A Few Other
Criminal Offences that escape my mind at the moment...
So... you see the Conundrum At Work here...
IF "Spousal Privilege" IS Retroactively Assertable, THEN Almost
Certainly, The Privilege IS WAIVED by its LIKEWISE Retroactive
UNavailability Due To a "Domestic Violence" Complaint...
Only the DA has something up her sleeve they did not count on.
The mugging occurred in public and was captured on video from a local
business with security cameras that clearly shows the crime taking
place.
--------------------------
This is where we are stumped in the story on where to go from here.
Would a court accept the video tape as evidence even without the
wife's tesitimony?
ABsolutely... EVEN IF ALL The Aforementioned Legal Concepts worked
In Favor Of Spousal Privilege, the Video Tape is Independent Evidence,
In & Of Itself... Wifey could be Compelled to Testify AS TO whether or
NOT The Bound Robbery Victim in The Graphic Testimony is, In Fact,
Herself... w/o Implicating said Spousal Privilege...
Even IF she Says "I dunno..." The Jury, Upon Viewing VidTape Victim/
Witness Stand Body [Assuming Your Plot Provides For her attendance,
Either Voluntarily, Accidentally, OR Via Subpoena] can subsequently
draw whatever Reasonable Conclusion it can Thus, Infer...
To Say Nothing Of The Jury's ability To Infer from VidTape that The
Suspect DID Assault & Rob - AS Depicted - *SOME* "The People"
Victim...
Yes, this is a work of fiction but knowing very little about the law,
we need help on where to go with the plot from here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
:)
Naughtius "Take Another Little Piece `O M'Heart Now Baby..." Maximus
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:09:21 -0700, richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
[...]
Which tv show was this on? Matlock?
Marriage does not always protect against criminal procedings.
As the crime was committed before any marriage issue took place, her
testimony and the video tape would both be admissable. She could be
charged with perjury if she does not testify truthfully.
She can't be forced to testify against her husband.
--
Kent
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
|
| |
| |
Marriage does not always protect against criminal procedings.
As the crime was committed before any marriage issue took place, her
testimony and the video tape would both be admissable. She could be
charged with perjury if she does not testify truthfully.
There are plenty of ways to not testify truthfully, and still not
be guilty of perjury. She could not say anything. (Likely to get
a contempt of court charge, not perjury). She could take the 5th
amendment. She could disappear so she can't be served. She could
render herself incapable of answering (lobotomy might do it, or
various accidents likely to involve brain damage, or suicide).
|
| |
| |
In article <0bm8u393vk1hqh34hr3suoc1j9ric3km4v@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:09:21 -0700, richard <i.do.not@ca.re> wrote:
[...]
She can't be forced to testify against her husband.
Battle of the Usenet Dummies.
|
| |
| |
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:fs3ci5$5l0@rac3.wam.umd.edu:
In article <0bm8u393vk1hqh34hr3suoc1j9ric3km4v@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
Battle of the Usenet Dummies.
If only they could use their powers for good instead of evil.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:32:04 -0000, gordonb.kbh79@burditt.org (Gordon
Burditt) wrote:
Marriage does not always protect against criminal procedings.
As the crime was committed before any marriage issue took place, her
testimony and the video tape would both be admissable. She could be
charged with perjury if she does not testify truthfully.
There are plenty of ways to not testify truthfully, and still not
be guilty of perjury. She could not say anything. (Likely to get
a contempt of court charge, not perjury). She could take the 5th
amendment.
Presuming she was made to testify, I don't see how she could
justify taking the fifth when she's the victim.
She could disappear so she can't be served. She could
render herself incapable of answering (lobotomy might do it, or
various accidents likely to involve brain damage, or suicide).
These would work, but seem a bit extreme :)
--
Kent
Ethernet (n): Something used to catch the etherbunny.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:39:13 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:fs3ci5$5l0@rac3.wam.umd.edu:
If only they could use their powers for good instead of evil.
Where's the fun in that? :-)
--
Kent
A woman is like a tea bag -
Only in hot water do you realize how strong she is.
|
| |
| |
In article <fhoau3d2u4av40d4jg2f8k8361a23meob1@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:39:13 GMT, Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
Where's the fun in that? :-)
Leave it to the (self-proclaimed Christian) felon to assert that
evil is fun.
|
| |
| |
In article <fs3o2s$7ov@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
In article <fhoau3d2u4av40d4jg2f8k8361a23meob1@4ax.com>,
Kent Wills <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote:
Leave it to the (self-proclaimed Christian) felon to assert that
evil is fun.
Leave it to the idiot to not know an off-handed remark when he sees one.
|
| |
| |
Marriage does not always protect against criminal procedings.
As the crime was committed before any marriage issue took place, her
testimony and the video tape would both be admissable. She could be
charged with perjury if she does not testify truthfully.
There are plenty of ways to not testify truthfully, and still not
be guilty of perjury. She could not say anything. (Likely to get
a contempt of court charge, not perjury). She could take the 5th
amendment.
Presuming she was made to testify, I don't see how she could
justify taking the fifth when she's the victim.
Is it ever necessary to "justify" taking the 5th amendment? Especially
since "justifying" it consists of explaining why something is
incriminating?
The 5th amendment would seem to allow you to avoid incriminating
yourself (or admitting something YOU THINK might be incriminating
yourself even if it isn't.) even if nobody else can understand HOW
answering the question would incriminate you.
For example, even admitting you understand English might incriminate
you for prior unrelated testimony years ago in which you claimed
not to speak English to avoid testifying about what you overheard
in a conversation between what you thought were local crime syndicate
members. Or perhaps the weapon used was taken from HER (that might
or might not have been on camera) and she doesn't want to testify
about that since it was the weapon she also used to kill her first
husband.
Nowadays, someone should be VERY, VERY careful about admitting
possession of things like a "high school yearbook", or a "baby
book", since they might contain what is now considered child
pornography (even if it's of YOURSELF).
She could disappear so she can't be served. She could
render herself incapable of answering (lobotomy might do it, or
various accidents likely to involve brain damage, or suicide).
These would work, but seem a bit extreme :)
Yes, they are. I couldn't think of anything that could have temporary
effect that would seem permanent. If she zones out on prescription
drugs and they realize this they might just delay the trial and hold
her until she sobers up.
Kent
Ethernet (n): Something used to catch the etherbunny.
|
| |
| |
In article <13ubh8vjrkdan9b@corp.supernews.com>,
gordonb.7qz2d@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
Marriage does not always protect against criminal procedings.
As the crime was committed before any marriage issue took place, her
testimony and the video tape would both be admissable. She could be
charged with perjury if she does not testify truthfully.
There are plenty of ways to not testify truthfully, and still not
be guilty of perjury. She could not say anything. (Likely to get
a contempt of court charge, not perjury). She could take the 5th
amendment.
Presuming she was made to testify, I don't see how she could
justify taking the fifth when she's the victim.
Is it ever necessary to "justify" taking the 5th amendment? Especially
since "justifying" it consists of explaining why something is
incriminating?
It may be necessary to provide an offer of proof - a basic explanation
of the basis for the belief that the answer could be incriminating,
without actually incriminating yourself.
Though, the prosecution could grant immunity to the witness for anything
they would say, which means they could not escape testifying by invoking
the fifth amendment.
The 5th amendment would seem to allow you to avoid incriminating
yourself (or admitting something YOU THINK might be incriminating
yourself even if it isn't.)
No - if it isn't incriminating, the Fifth doesn't protect you. What you
subjectively think doesn't matter.
even if nobody else can understand HOW
answering the question would incriminate you.
For example, even admitting you understand English might incriminate
you for prior unrelated testimony years ago in which you claimed
not to speak English to avoid testifying about what you overheard
in a conversation between what you thought were local crime syndicate
members.
That's not considered incriminating testimony. Your actual words on the
stand now are not the proof or evidence you committed the crime; in this
case, your false testimony years ago is what "incriminated" you.
Or perhaps the weapon used was taken from HER (that might
or might not have been on camera) and she doesn't want to testify
about that since it was the weapon she also used to kill her first
husband.
Saying the weapon was taken from her would only incriminate her as to a
charge of possessing the weapon at that time.
Nowadays, someone should be VERY, VERY careful about admitting
possession of things like a "high school yearbook", or a "baby
book", since they might contain what is now considered child
pornography (even if it's of YOURSELF).
She could disappear so she can't be served. She could
render herself incapable of answering (lobotomy might do it, or
various accidents likely to involve brain damage, or suicide).
Yes, they are. I couldn't think of anything that could have temporary
effect that would seem permanent. If she zones out on prescription
drugs and they realize this they might just delay the trial and hold
her until she sobers up.
And if she fled the jurisdiction, most (all?) states have interstate
agreements on serving witnesses with subpoenas, and taking them into
custody and extraditing them to the original state if that's what it
takes.
|
| |
| |
In article <x-091D79.21412922032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <fs3o2s$7ov@rac3.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
Leave it to the idiot to not know an off-handed remark when he sees one.
Sure thing, idiot.
|
| |
| |
In article <fs9ant$f03@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
In article <x-091D79.21412922032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Sure thing, idiot.
Witty. And about as intelligent as most of your posts.
|
| |
| |
In article <x-E8B598.23095724032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <fs9ant$f03@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
Witty. And about as intelligent as most of your posts.
Thanks!
|
| |
| |
In article <fsbahv$7p8@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
In article <x-E8B598.23095724032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
Thanks!
You would take that as a complement, you fool.
|
| |
| |
In article <x-05879B.21451725032008@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
In article <fsbahv$7p8@rac1.wam.umd.edu>, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
wrote:
You would take that as a complement, you fool.
Compliment. Complement is something else, genius.
|
| |
| |
|
