4 ms·
That's an easy scenario. The prosecutor sees you (elsewhere) while the crime is being committed. Later, they charge you anyways because the evidence seems stron
by fineman 11y ago
That's an easy scenario. The prosecutor sees you (elsewhere) while the crime is being committed. Later, they charge you anyways because the evidence seems strong enough to convince others.
- mikeash 11y agoProsecutors are typically required to give the defense all evidence they possess that could possibly aid their defense. They may not actually do this, but that doesn't make it actually a prosecutor's job to prosecute in this hypothetical.
- fineman 11y agoYeah, and yet the prosecutors in this story are saying they don't even have an obligation to let you know when their case has been shown to be fraudulent. My point of eyewitness testimony is that it would truly convince the DA but wouldn't be valuable evidence in the trial. They could say "I think I saw him elsewhere" to be truthful but say it in a way that didn't give it enough weight to counteract the other, conflicting (because you weren't really there) evidence. If this came out, the DA would not even face censure or reprimand, let alone firing or criminal charges.
- mikeash 11y agoIf a reliable witness with no reason to lie came out and testified that they saw the suspect far away from the crime scene when the alleged crime was committed, that wouldn't be seen as compelling evidence for the innocence of the accused?
- fineman 11y agoI meant to specifically under-tell the story. Make sure that your testimony was questioned, don't argue strongly, etc. I don't know the hand-ranking of various legal maneuvers but I am curious where a DA's eye-witness testimony would rank compared to a cell-phone location trace, or hair samples, etc.