Is This Legal?

[dooditschels]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

My mom's boyfriend was recently arrested and charges with two felonies and a misdemeanor for starting a bathroom fire in the bar around the corner. However, he claims he did not do it. They did not question anyone else about doing the fire and three people - the owner, the owner's brother and an employee - claimed that he was the last one out of the bathroom. They did not arrest my mom's boyfriend that night and let him go, saying they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him.

Eight days later, the sheriff showed up at our door and took him in for questioning. They then had statements from the owner, his brother and the employee, which neither my mom nor her boyfriend saw taken on the night the fire occurred. On these statements alone, they are charging him with arson in the third (felony) , criminal mischief in the second (felony) and reckless endangerment in the second (misdemeanor).

However, when we first moved to the area my mom and her boyfriend were jumped by several men. One of the men actually hit my mother, leaving a bruise on her, but the police did not charge him with anything when they came. Since then, my mom's boyfriend has seen the man that hit my mother and went to confront him - this man then ran into the bar my mom's boyfriend supposedly started a fire in, so we're assuming he might know the owner or something.

The owner of the bar was also speaking to the officer that had put my mom's boyfriend in the back of the police car the night of the fire by first name.

Basically, we're thinking there's a huge conflict of interest going on here but I wanted to ask some other people. Is it even legal to charge him on just statements - and ones that were taken after the fire, at that? Given that it wasn't taken that night, it would give the 'witnesses' time to collaborate a story and therefore frame him, would it not?

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, it is perfectly legal to charge someone based upon statements alone ... most crimes are addressed in that manner as CSI is not called out for most offenses.

An arrest requires only probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and the person arrested committed the crime. A conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All because they made the arrest it does not follow that he will be ultimately charged and convicted. Depending on how the fire was started, it could have begun with someone tossing a lit cigarette butt into the trash several minutes earlier, and such a possibility is what the defense would claim as reasonable doubt.

All because the officers and the bar own er know each other does not mean that the officer will break the law to support his pal. Because of that relationship he might be inclined to believe him more than the average Joe, but not lie. I live and work in a small town and most the people I arrest know me by first name and even know my phone number. All because they know me does not mean that I would avoid doing my job where they are concerned. So, unless you can show that there was some sort of unlawful collusion or conspiracy to frame the defendant, his attorney will simply have to address the evidence.

From the sound of it, the case is circumstantial and based upon a claim that the defendant was the last one out of the bathroom. If that is all there is, and there is no evidence that the fire was started by some form of accelerant that would have gone up in moments, then I suspect there is enough reasonable doubt to give the defense a good shot at winning.