• 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.

Arresting officer in my case was "arrested himself" for assualt.

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

LdiJ

Senior Member
How does his subsequent arrested bar him from testifying to the events?

Of course, bringing a (possibly) discredited officer in to testify has its downsides, but there is nothing that would prevent the state from doing so.
I think that maybe there is. Their testimony has to be in their capacity as a police officer. You wouldn't have a doctor who lost his/he medical license testify as an expert witness. You wouldn't have a disbarred lawyer testify as to the law, etc.
 


Just Blue

Senior Member
I think that maybe there is. Their testimony has to be in their capacity as a police officer. You wouldn't have a doctor who lost his/he medical license testify as an expert witness. You wouldn't have a disbarred lawyer testify as to the law, etc.
The officer can still testify as to what s/he observed during the arrest. The weight that the jury/judge gives said testimony may be questionable. Your analogies are terrible LD.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I think that maybe there is. Their testimony has to be in their capacity as a police officer. You wouldn't have a doctor who lost his/he medical license testify as an expert witness. You wouldn't have a disbarred lawyer testify as to the law, etc.
The officer was not suspended at the time of Travis' arrest. What happened to the officer three weeks subsequent to the arrest does not mean the arrest of Travis was without merit. It merely means that the character of the officer could play a role in the defense.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
The officer was not suspended at the time of Travis' arrest. What happened to the officer three weeks subsequent to the arrest does not mean the arrest of Travis was without merit. It merely means that the character of the officer could play a role in the defense.
Again, I disagree. The lawyer on this thread who posted seems to agree with me. The end result will be whatever it ends up being.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
And a Doctor does not have to be licensed to be able to testify to his knowledge and a disbarred lawyer can testify to their knowledge as well.

Why each lost their license might be pertinent to the situation but if it isn,t, then why would an active license be required to testify? They still have their knowledge.
 

quincy

Senior Member
I hope Travis posts back with what happened at today's hearing. I imagine another hearing has been scheduled.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
The officer will not be available in his capacity as a police officer, to testify. He is suspended.
He was a police officer when he made the stop and arrest. He may certainly testify about that and state that he was employed as a police officer at the time of the stop. Whether the subsequent arrest may be used to impeach his credibility depends on how the officer's case plays out and what the rules of evidence are that apply. It may be that the arrest would not be admissible and thus the jury would never hear of it.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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