• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Innocent, need help!

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Goody

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? NY

Recently I got into an arguement with someone. Before it could get violent I left. A week later I was arrested by the police with a warrent and charged with Agg Assault. The police explained that the person I argued with claimed a few days after the incident that I ran into him and his friends on the street and produced a knife and threatened them. He pressed charges and his friends claimed to be witnesses. I told the police that on the night in question that I was over a friends house and could prove it as my friends could vouch. The police said that was fine but that I still had to be arrested and that I could explain everything in court but that I'd better have more then just friends vouching as it's a shakey defense due to the fact that I could have people lie for me. I spoke to a lawyer and they confirmed this and asked if I could produce anything solid to prove my where abouts such as documentation, video, even reciepts. I don't, what does this mean? Will I be convicted of something I didn't do just because I can't produce physical evidence? Why is his friends vouching for him enough to arrest me but mine aren't enough to prove my innocense? Really need some good advice.

-Ron
 


Bretagne

Member
Why is his friends vouching for him enough to arrest me but mine aren't enough to prove my innocense?

Because the police only need PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest you. This means that it is more likely than not that you committed the crime charged.

In order to be convicted, the state must prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you are guilty.

This means that there is enough reason to charge you, but not necessarily enough to convict you. It's not up to the cops to decide you are not guilty; it is up to the jury.
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
Q: Will I be convicted of something I didn't do just because I can't produce physical evidence?

A: No; as set out above, the government has the burden of proof in criminal cases.
 

Goody

Junior Member
So your saying I have nothing to fear? My lawyer said my past arrest may cause a problem. I am currently awaiting trail for terroristic threats in another state and the guy doing this to me claims to have text messages of me threatening to kill him, even though they are fake because I didn't text him...EVER. I've been told that the jury has to only have reasonable doubt to convict.
 

Blindrift

Junior Member
I'm interested in the response to Goody's question. I'm in a situation with my ex that is basically the same, however, she really did pull a weapon on me and a friend. All I have to state my case is mine and my friends testimony as witness's. What worries me now is that according to the answers given to Goody's question, she can apparently walk away from this by simply ditching the gun and getting friends to lie for her (Which they have done in the past.) I mean if that's the case, why bother pressing charges, all it will do is waste time and maybe send her deeper over the edge. What's worse I'm pretty sure that when charges can't be proved that opens the door to cival liabilty for the accusar. In plain english, I can be sued, though that's probably the least of my worries.

Sorry if I Hi-jacked your thread Goody, not my intent, I just figure the answer to this may answer a few of your questions as the matters are so closely related.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
beyond a resaonable doubt. that is the requirement for you to be found guilty of a crime.

this does not mean beyond all doubt, just reasonable doubt. but as you have already been told, it is up to the government to prove the charge against you.

and of course you have something to worry about. You think there are no inoccent people in jail? Of course there is but hopefully very few.

Your past won;t help you but unless/until that case is resolved, it should not be able to be brought in as any sort of evidence against you. As of right now the other case if merely an allegation, not proven yet.
 

Blindrift

Junior Member
Actually the past, even unresolved matters in court can hurt you. The prosecution just has to be careful how they word things. They will more then likely be brought to the courts attention. It's like the lie detector test, it can't be used in court to prove guilt or innocense, but it can be presented to a jury as food for thought.

Goody, from what I've researched and what people are saying here, it's looking alot like a coin toss. It all falls on the jury and the judge. The best thing you can do is maintain your innocense and present whatever evidence you have, witness's or other and hope justice preveils. It's not comforting, but unless you can present something solid, your gonna have to go for the ride.
 

Kane

Member
Blindrift & Goody: Unless there's a plea bargain, the case will go to trial. If it goes to trial, the jury will listen to both sides, and decide whom to believe.

Yeah, sometimes they get it wrong.

But it happens less often than you'd think. Lying under oath, from the witness stand, while subject to cross-examination, and under penalty of perjury, is difficult. It's not like lying to your friends.

And friendship only goes so far, when it comes to perjury.
 

Blindrift

Junior Member
Yeah, it's scary really. On one side of the coin you can have an innocent man easily arrested and put in prison effectively ruining their life by simply lying. On the other side a guilty person could walk free because as Kane stated, sometimes they get it wrong due to the fact that the evidence is so vague. Crazy world we live in.
 

Bretagne

Member
On the other side a guilty person could walk free because as Kane stated, sometimes they get it wrong due to the fact that the evidence is so vague.
Yeah, or the evidence is sufficient on paper but I'm such a darn good defense attorney that I pick apart the state's case and get the trial dismissed as a matter of law before I even put on my defense! :) Totally a rush when that happens. That's when you know the prosecutor got "schooled", and needs to go back to Prosecution 101 :D
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top