Being falsely accused by someone with "witnesses"

[Jorsher]

Hi, I'm in AL.

Sunday morning I wake up to a message from someone claiming they saw me slashing their tires with a friend. He said he had a witness that saw me, my friend, and my friend's car. He said he filed a report and they were signing the warrant Wednesday.

I did not do this. How important is "witness" testimony in these type things? I don't have money to spend on a lawyer to defend myself for a crime I didn't commit. I lived with him briefly and after a lot of my things came up missing, I came back from vacation to a place without power for a week, and got tired of his stories about who he's screwed over -- I stopped talking to him. I stopped all contact with him about 2 months ago and was trying to avoid any contact with him.

This guy:
- has stolen from me
- has stolen from stores
- has stolen from other friends
- steals from a widow he is remodeling a house for
- has a criminal record

Me:
- could lose a job and security clearance
- has no criminal record
- is innocent!

My question is: Why would it be Wednesday before a warrant could be signed? Are these "witnesses" considered valid evidence to press charges against me? He sent me the messages at about 3AM and I was at home without a vehicle at that time.

Thanks!

 

[JETX]

How important is "witness" testimony in these type things?

Depending on the circumstances, who and what they saw, could be nothing to everything.

This guy:
- has stolen from me
- has stolen from stores
- has stolen from other friends
- steals from a widow he is remodeling a house for
- has a criminal record

Not relevant to THIS issue.

Me:
- could lose a job and security clearance
- has no criminal record

Again, not relevant.

My question is: Why would it be Wednesday before a warrant could be signed?

First, not relevant.
Second, who knows?? Maybe the police still need further investigation.

Are these "witnesses" considered valid evidence to press charges against me?

As noted above, it depends on who they are and what they say.

He sent me the messages at about 3AM and I was at home without a vehicle at that time.

Not relevant.

So, where were you at the time of the incident?
Can anyone confirm where you were??
And what about your 'buds' and your "friend, and my friend's car". Where were they and what does your friend say??

 

[Jorsher]

What do you mean it depends who and what they saw? What "who" would be deemed a reliable source?

At the time of the incident I was home, sleeping. Nobody can confirm it because I live alone.

My friend that is being accused was at his parent's, who can confirm he was home.

 

[CdwJava]

I believe what JetX is asking is how reliable the witnesses are? if they are credible, then their claims may be sufficient to support a charge. Whether the charge would result in a prosecution is impossible to say.

If a warrant IS issued, I would recommend consulting legal counsel immediately.

- Carl

 

[JETX]

What do you mean it depends who and what they saw? What "who" would be deemed a reliable source?

The 'who' is relevant as the testimony of a brother or friend of the 'victim' would be viewed by the court as less credible than one by an absolute stranger.
The 'what' is relevant since a witness who can claim that they actually saw YOU do the damage is far more relevant than one who can only say that they saw someone who 'kind of looks like you'.

At the time of the incident I was home, sleeping. Nobody can confirm it because I live alone.

Then you better hope that their witness(es) are not absolutely credible to the investigating officers.

My friend that is being accused was at his parent's, who can confirm he was home.

Sounds like a 'he said, he said' situation and it will rely largely on the evidence/testimony at the scene.

 

[CraigFL]

Although the threat seems to be criminal, it may actually be civil. The kind and depth of the evidence would be different for each of these kinds of court. I'm not sure why the "victim" would give you a heads-up on the impending case.

 

[Kane]

There's a story about a lawyer who charges twice as much for his innocent clients as his guilty ones. The point isn't just that a lot of them changed their minds, or that it's harder to represent the innocent than the guilty. It's that being innocent means you need a lawyer more, not less.

It's not like there's two lines at the courthouse, and you get to decide which one to stand in. The process is the same for everybody. You saying you're innocent doesn't change anything. You have the same rights as every other person who's accused of a crime.

Look at it this way - at least you weren't accused of something serious. These people will probably die in prison.

If you're charged, set your case for trial. Your accusers probably won't show up. (Lying in court is a felony.) If they do, it's your lawyer's job (or yours, if you represent yourself) to show what lying sacks of sh*t they are.



"These people" = News: Believing the Children: It's likely Fran and Danny Keller were innocent of charges of child sexual abuse, but they're still in prison after 17 years - The Austin Chronicle