Ignorance of the law is no excuse

[annetteswalls]

California city of Fresno. My concern is for that of my oldest son now 31 years old, who is falsely accused of sex crimes involving minor under 14. What evidence must the District Attorney have to prosecute?

 

[CdwJava]

California city of Fresno. My concern is for that of my oldest son now 31 years old, who is falsely accused of sex crimes involving minor under 14. What evidence must the District Attorney have to prosecute?

That depends, what is the specific offense (code section) he is charged with? The term "sex crimes" can cover a great deal of ground.

Generally, they need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. What elements must be proven depends on the specific statute he is charged with violating.

 

[FlyingRon]

To commence the prosecution, all he needs is probable cause that the offense was committed. The standard is that there is such evidence (and statements by witnesses are evidence) that a reasonable person is more likely to believe the offense committed than not. This is far less than what is needed to convict at a trial.

Your son needs an attorney big time if he is being prosecuted.

 

[quincy]

The testimony of a minor sometimes can be enough.

Your son needs a criminal defense attorney. He should ONLY speak to his attorney.

 

[not2cleverRed]

California city of Fresno. My concern is for that of my oldest son now 31 years old, who is falsely accused of sex crimes involving minor under 14.

Define "falsely accused" in this context.

What evidence must the District Attorney have to prosecute?

The District Attorney prosecutes when they have enough evidence to, in their opinion, have a shot at convicting someone of something.

In other words, it varies.

 

[Just Blue]

California city of Fresno. My concern is for that of my oldest son now 31 years old, who is falsely accused of sex crimes involving minor under 14. What evidence must the District Attorney have to prosecute?

Your thread title is "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Which is it Annette...Did your son not realize having sex with a 12 year old was illegal or is it a false charge?

 

[not2cleverRed]

Your thread title is "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Which is it Annette...Did your son not realize having sex with a 12 year old was illegal or is it a false charge?

It certainly isn't an excuse for a 31 year old. Just because he doesn't have an older brother doesn't mean there's an excuse to have less sense than God granted a turnip.

 

[Just Blue]

It certainly isn't an excuse for a 31 year old. Just because he doesn't have an older brother doesn't mean there's an excuse to have less sense than God granted a turnip.

Oh, I know that. I'm just curious which it is...ignorance of the crime or innocence of the crime.

 

[Taxing Matters]

To commence the prosecution, all he needs is probable cause that the offense was committed. The standard is that there is such evidence (and statements by witnesses are evidence) that a reasonable person is more likely to believe the offense committed than not. This is far less than what is needed to convict at a trial.

Not exactly. The more likely than not standard applies to most civil lawsuits. It does not apply to the concept of probable cause. There is no particular percentage standard applied to probable cause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the federal appeals circuit that includes California, defines probable cause as follows:

“Probable cause to arrest exists when officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested.” United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)). “The probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances.” Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003). Indeed, “probable cause is a fluid concept-turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).​

Rodis v. City, Cty. of San Francisco, 558 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). As you can see, the Court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court in rejecting the notion of any "precise definition or quantification into percentages" for probable cause.

Your son needs an attorney big time if he is being prosecuted.

Absolutely agree with that.

 

[quincy]

annetteswalls, I suggest you have your son watch the following video:

If your son is accused of committing a sex crime against a minor, you can best help your son by helping him pay for the costs of hiring a criminal defense attorney.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Oh, I know that. I'm just curious which it is...ignorance of the crime or innocence of the crime.

In the absence of further posts from annette clarifying this, we can only hypothesize.

My hypothesis is that annette's son corresponded with someone he thought was a minor under the age of 14, but who was actually a cop. People have the misimpression that such sting operations are "police entrapment" and that there is no crime because it turns out that they weren't inappropriately corresponding with an actual minor.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot get in trouble if you, as an adult, are strictly only interested carrying on "that way" with adults, and don't send pictures that your sainted grandmother couldn't put in her brag book. Or display in the living room.

 

[quincy]

Without further information, there are all sorts of possibilities.

 

[Just Blue]

In the absence of further posts from annette clarifying this, we can only hypothesize.

My hypothesis is that annette's son corresponded with someone he thought was a minor under the age of 14, but who was actually a cop. People have the misimpression that such sting operations are "police entrapment" and that there is no crime because it turns out that they weren't inappropriately corresponding with an actual minor.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot get in trouble if you, as an adult, are strictly only interested carrying on "that way" with adults, and don't send pictures that your sainted grandmother couldn't put in her brag book. Or display in the living room.

Some people have really weird grandma's.

 

[quincy]

Some people have really weird grandma's.

Probably not applicable here.