2 v 1 word-against-word

[Anglo]

Hi chaps. I'm actually in the UK but am looking for general advice on how to tackle a difficult issue. I am presuming the law is fundamentally similar across the board and am looking for precedents.

A friend of mine has been charged as an accessory to fraud. In summary, up to 4 of her bosses had been embezzling funds from their company and she, as the book keeper, has been implicated by them. The presumption by her lawyer is that they have realised they have no defence and have chosen to name as many people as possible, thus making their part in the crime apparently less, while also appearing to cooperate. 2 of the 4 (of the other 2, one is dead and the other is pleading innocence) named her in their arrest interview and gave corroborative details in their story.

Their statements are the cornerstone of the prosecution, although their is some circumstantial evidence; some for her, some against. Without the 2 guys corroborating it would be worth a 'not guilty' gamble, but not with their 'evidence'.

Accordingly, this single mother is looking at pleading guilty so she doesn't miss 5 years of her daughter's life. Lesser sentence, but means admitting to something she didn't do.

So, how do you defend against something like this? Can 'cooperation by accusers' be used as a defence if you are named? Any precedents anyone knows of?

Please feel free to e-mail me direct if you have any ideas.

JB

 

[HomeGuru]

Hi chaps. I'm actually in the UK but am looking for general advice on how to tackle a difficult issue. I am presuming the law is fundamentally similar across the board and am looking for precedents.

A friend of mine has been charged as an accessory to fraud. In summary, up to 4 of her bosses had been embezzling funds from their company and she, as the book keeper, has been implicated by them. The presumption by her lawyer is that they have realised they have no defence and have chosen to name as many people as possible, thus making their part in the crime apparently less, while also appearing to cooperate. 2 of the 4 (of the other 2, one is dead and the other is pleading innocence) named her in their arrest interview and gave corroborative details in their story.

Their statements are the cornerstone of the prosecution, although their is some circumstantial evidence; some for her, some against. Without the 2 guys corroborating it would be worth a 'not guilty' gamble, but not with their 'evidence'.

Accordingly, this single mother is looking at pleading guilty so she doesn't miss 5 years of her daughter's life. Lesser sentence, but means admitting to something she didn't do.

So, how do you defend against something like this? Can 'cooperation by accusers' be used as a defence if you are named? Any precedents anyone knows of?

Please feel free to e-mail me direct if you have any ideas.

JB

**A: please read the red words at the top of the page. Thanks.
signed,

English Professor

 

[Anglo]

Thanks. Please read the text! I'm looking for general ideas, not specific state-to-state laws. I figured the land of the free would be able to generate some radical ideas or alternative angles...that's all. Red text noted.

 

[HomeGuru]

Did you also note the question that you deleted?

 

[Anglo]

Ah right, the one about what state am I in. Well, I'm not, it's my friend who is in a state

OK, if we're going to discuss national e-boundaries I'll just shut up. Is there a reason why I can't ask general questions because of my accent?

Oh, by the way, I fought with you guys in Iraq...

 

[HomeGuru]

Yes, it is your accent. It is too thick, especially over the internet. We can tell that you are not an American. God Bless America.

 

[Anglo]

Over here if I'm accused of being 'thick' it means I'm dumb, but I'll overlook that as a mis-translation...I hope.

As for Americans, yeah you're not a bad bunch all things considered and I've worked with you a lot in the past. In fact, I've sung 'red white and blue' by Toby Keith in a bar in Germany with a bunch of you guys, so there!

On a separate - and original - subject, I don't suppose you DO have any bright ideas of a defence do you?

 

[HomeGuru]

Over here if I'm accused of being 'thick' it means I'm dumb, but I'll overlook that as a mis-translation...I hope.

**A: you dumb, stupid, ignorant and an idiot. Overlook and translate that!
**********

As for Americans, yeah you're not a bad bunch all things considered and I've worked with you a lot in the past. In fact, I've sung 'red white and blue' by Toby Keith in a bar in Germany with a bunch of you guys, so there!

On a separate - and original - subject, I don't suppose you DO have any bright ideas of a defence do you?

**A: yes, in America you can get defence made out of wood, chain link, wrought iron, vinyl, CMU and a host of other material types.

 

[Anglo]

hhmm, by your first reply I just gathered why you're a HOME guru. You must be otherwise unemployable

Thanks for your help. I feel sure America has benefitted vastly from your attempts today to defend freedom - albeit someone's personal freedom. I'm not annoyed enough with you to wish what she's going through on you...

Adios Americans. I know guru doesn't represent you as a whole...

 

[cbg]

"I am presuming the law is fundamentally similar across the board and am looking for precedents."

Criminal law is not my field, but in employment law, which is, there is a TREMENDOUS difference between US law and UK law. Also, the law varies widely from state to state even within the US, which I understand is not the case in the UK - the law cuts across county lines, from what I have been told. So it really would be impossible to give a precedent, even within the US, without knowing what state, or what circuit, the case was in; giving precedent that would follow in another country would be impossible.

 

[Anglo]

cbg

Thanks for an intelligent reply at long last!

I thought that might be the case, but am trying my hardest to help my friend and have started to look wider afield for good advice. She is getting advice from her lawyer but it's difficult to know how good that is and how laterally - or vigorously - he is fighting her corner. I suppose I'm looking for someone to say "in Smith Vs Jones and Green,little credence was given to the statements of the bad guys because in implicating Smith the bad guys confirmed their own guilt". I'm trying to get an idea of how much credibility is generally weighed on people naming names for a lesser sentence - which is what it appears to be.

Right now I have a very scared 30 year old single mother with a 9-year old daughter, left wondering whether to plead guilty to something she didn't (I believe) do, or throw herself to the mercy of the courts and hope good prevails. In pure terms, sure, she should plead not guilty, but in reality if that goes wrong she stands to see her daughter in 5 years time.

Once again, thanks for at least replying with intelligence.

 

[calatty]

Here in California the bosses' testimony would be admissible evidence in court. Their testimony would have to be corroborated if they are accomplices, and if they are receiving a benefit for testifying, that can be used against them. From a quick look at English law on Westlaw, it looks like accomplice testimony is admissible there too, and while there is no corroboration requirement, the judge in his discretion can instruct the jury "to examine the evidence of each co-defendant with care because each has or may have an interest of his own to serve." It is very unlikely that in an embezzlement case the only evidence is someone's word. The account books could most likely provide the necessary corroboration by showing that she must have known what is going on in order to prepare the accounts as she did. In general, innocent people should not plead guilty, but guilty people should if they are getting a good deal, like no jail time. Again, I can only speak for California.

 

[drago]

Hello Anglo

What is the definition of book keeper there?

Here it doesn't necessarily mean a high level of training or responsibility, but it could. It is a loosely used term.

If she is just an entry clerk and not knowledgeable enough to 'see' shady goings on then she should defend herself with vigor.

If she is in charge of the books then she is probably an accomplice or at least provided aid.

I can't help you with the law there but as you pointed out terms have different meanings and uses.