Is the statement &quot;I/we am/are pressing charges&quot; incorrect? In the media and in everyday life it is common to hear things like: "Are you going to press charges?" "Did Bob Press charges?" "I am going to press charges against that jerk" Or something along those lines. These statements make it seem like individual citizens have some ability and all mechanisms at their disposal to bring a charge upon someone or something. I am wondering if what is really being said in these statements is more like: "I am going to press the District Attorney to charge my assailant" Or "I heard Jan and Bob feel very wronged by Mike and they will be speaking with the DA today in hopes that charges will be filed" So the question is this: Is pressing charges the act of convincing or informing the true authority that can do such a thing to indeed take the action? Or is there some mechanism/action that takes place when a person says they are going to "press charges" that I am unaware of?
The General Rule: The Prosecutor And Not The Crime Victim Decides You are correct that this is mostly wrong. Pressing charges is something that happens. But, this simply consists of making a report to law enforcement about an incident and asking that the prosecutor either directly, or indirectly through a request directed to the law enforcement officer to whom a report is made, to pursue criminal charges in the case. But, this request has no binding or legal effect, even though many law enforcement agencies and prosecutors offices have a formal or informal unwritten policy of honoring a crime reporting victim's wishes whenever possible. In the United States, a prosecutor can commence a criminal case against someone without consulting a victim of a crime, or over the objections of the victim of the crime, and can even (and sometimes does) incarcerate the victim of the crime to force the victim to testify against a criminal defendant (this most often happens in cases of statutory rape, domestic violence and cases involving organized crime or gangs). Likewise, a prosecutor (in the United States) can choose to decline to prosecute a criminal case despite irrefutable evidence tied up with a bow and the pleas of the victim and lots of other members of the general public. (Not all countries are like this. For example, in Germany, some crimes can only be prosecuted with the victim's consent, and within reason a prosecutor is required to prosecute every case in which there is clear evidence that a crime was committed and the victim's consent, if necessary, is present. While Germany is something of an extreme case, it is much closer to the norm than the U.S. is in countries that do not have a common law legal tradition, while the U.S., while an extreme case, is closer to the norm of countries in the common law tradition of British law.) A crime victim's wishes aren't entirely irrelevant in practice. Many states have a &quot;victim's bill of rights&quot; that requires a prosecutor to confer with a victim when possible over whether a criminal case will be commenced against a defendant, and in practice, many prosecutors in ordinary type cases come to think of the victims of crimes, rather than &quot;the People&quot; as their client, even though that isn't technically correct from a legal perspective. Most of the time, a crime victim's wishes will be respected by prosecutors whether conveyed directly to a prosecutor, or indirectly through a law enforcement officer. But, nothing requires either a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor to do so. Law enforcement officers in some ways have even more discretion than prosecutors do and simply don't pass on information about myriad crimes that they have knowledge of and could prove, every day. But, prosecutors can choose to disagree with a law enforcement officer's exercise of discretion when they do know about an incident, either by declining to prosecute a crime, or by prosecuting a crime that law enforcement officers didn't want to prosecute. And, law enforcement officers as a matter of practical reality can be forced by prosecutors to execute search warrants and arrest warrants. Also, it is true that when neither law enforcement or prosecutors know a crime has been committed that they can't prosecute it, and usually, the way that they learn of a crime is that a crime victim reports the crime to law enforcement. The decision to report or not report a crime not known to law enforcement is, in practice, what &quot;pressing charges&quot; or &quot;not pressing charges&quot; usually means and this does, in practice, constitute a veto power over further criminal proceedings arising from an incident, even though the language used implies a more formal step in a legal process than it does. Exceptions To The General Rule N.B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are a few exceptions to the general rule. A handful of U.S. states, so far as I know, all on the East Coast (and also England and South Africa), allow individuals who are crime victims to directly commence the prosecution of minor crimes in a court of law without the intervention of law enforcement or a prosecutor, or grand jury, often without an attorney. Usually, if this is done, the prosecuting attorney's office can take over the case from the private individual litigant if they choose to do so. A discussion of the historical practice with case citations can be found here. In the roughly half of U.S. states and in the federal system, where felony criminal charges must be brought via a grand jury indictment before they can be tried, a so called &quot;runaway grand jury&quot; can bring criminal charges that the prosecutor has a duty to make a good faith effort to prosecute, without the request of the prosecutor convening the grand jury. For example, in a recent Alabama case, prosecutors went to a grand jury seeking felony charges against someone who shot a pregnant woman, and the grand jury decided to indict the woman who was shot for manslaughter on the theory that she caused the death of her unborn child by starting a fight that led to the shooting. The prosecutor's office once it had control of the case, and had observed the public outrage over the decision, then dismissed those charges. There are a few states where a crime victim who is dissatisfied with a prosecutor or law enforcement officer's exercise of discretion can apply to a court to have a disinterested and uninvolved attorney appointed as a special prosecutor to review the facts of an alleged crime and decide independently regarding whether criminal charges should be pressed in a case where law enforcement and the prosecutor's office declined to do so. This is most frequently invoked when the alleged perpetrator of the crime is connected to law enforcement or the prosecutor's office. Also, just become a prosecutor declines to bring a criminal case despite a crime victim's desire to &quot;press charges&quot;, this doesn't mean that the victim can't sue the person who committed the crime for money damages (including punitive damages in many cases) from the same conduct that constituted the crime. In big dollar cases involving fraud or theft from a small number of affluent victims (a kind of case I frequently handle in my law practice), this happens all the time.
I have not read the news report so cannot comment on the alleged offences and police conduct, but what I can say is that the information to given on arrest may be found at section 28 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE): (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest. (2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious. (3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest. (4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious. (5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed— (a) that he is under arrest; or (b) of the ground for the arrest,if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given. Note the provisions at subsection (3) do not require anyone else to be told the grounds (reasons) at the time of arrest - including members of the public, protesters, bloggers or the press. Kerb-side debates can seriously or significantly distract the officer from ensuring e.g. public safety or preventing e.g. an escape from custody. Also, depending on what else is going on e.g. say in a dynamic and volatile crowd control or public order situation, the person under arrest does not need to told immediately if it would be impractical to do so. The operative phrase being as soon as is practicable, which is not defined by statute as each case needs to be considered individually according to its own set of circumstances. The relevant case law is DPP v Hawkins [1988] 1 WLR 1166, but the only detailed commentary I can find online is behind the PNLD paywall1. Succinctly, the magistrates initially dismissed the case against Hawkins for assaulting four police officers who kept him under arrest without giving the grounds as required by s.28(3) PACE. The DPP appealed, and the Court of Appeal sent the case back to the magistrates saying, inter alia, although there is an obligation under s.28(3) to tell a prisoner of the reason for his arrest as soon as possible (sic) after his arrest, a constable was also under an obligation to maintain that arrest until it was practicable to do so. 1Or free to law enforcement officers
Police officers can lie to you He asked to search your car. He’s allowed to do this. You said no. You’re allowed to do this. He lied to you when he said he would get the K9 to search the car - this would not be legal. But he’s allowed to tell you lies. You made an admission of criminal activity. He now has probable cause to search. He legally searched, confirmed your admission and booked you. Seems legit to me.
In Massachusetts where I live, here are the general guidelines: In re G.L. c. 268, § 32B(b). A person can be charged with resisting arrest only when the officer is acting under the color of his official position (meaning he is on duty and acting according to those duties). The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knew that the person seeking to make the arrest was a “police officer.” The Commonwealth may do so by proving that the officer was in uniform or, if not in uniform, identified himself (herself) by exhibiting his (her) credentials as a police officer while attempting to make the arrest. Such credentials would include such things as a badge, insignia, identification card, police radio, or other police equipment such as a clearly identified police vehicle. Thus, in Massachusetts according to usual legal interpretation: (1) The officer must be on duty and acting in an official capacity. (2) The officer must be provably known to be a police officer by some means to the person charged. Resisting arrest must be ancillary to some other charge. You cannot just be charged with "resisting arrest" unless you are actually being arrested on some other charge (or interfering with someone else being arrested). So, as far as a search is concerned, even if the resisting arrest charge were thrown out, the real question would be why was the person being arrested in the first place? That would determine the admitability of the evidence.
Nothing is typical Investigators have wide discretion on how (and if) they pursue an investigation of an alleged crime. When they make an arrest is part of that discretion. Making an arrest starts all sorts of clocks running on the legal process and investigators may not want to do that for all sorts of legitimate reasons.
In closing arguments, an attorney should only refer to evidence that was admitted at trial. In opening arguments, an attorney may refer to evidence that the attorney reasonably believes will be admitted at trial, and if the attorney has grounds to admit the transcript as an exhibit, could do so. If not, the attorney could still reasonable state: the evidence will show that an arresting officer described Mr. Jones as &quot;crazy&quot; without showing a transcript or explaining where it comes from (on the theory that the officer will either testify to that effect at trial or will be impeached at trial with the transcript for testifying in a contrary manner). Usually the transcript can usually be admitted only for impeachment, so usually it wouldn't be admissible absent contrary testimony at trial. But there are exceptions that apply to that rule which could make it admissible and hence proper to reference or show in opening arguments.
Yes The rule against prosecuting a sitting President is not a law, it is a Justice Department opinion and policy. The justification for it is that dealing with a criminal case would be severely distracting to the President, and thus harmful to the nation. Besides, the opinion goes on, any serious issue can be dealt with by impeachment. That reasoning obviously does not apply to a former President. Article I, section 3, paragraph 7 of the US constitution says: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. (emphasis added) This clearly contemplates the criminal prosecution of a former office holder, after such a person was removed by an impeachment. There is no exception for a President. Therefor a President can be criminally charged and prosecuted for actions during the presidency, provided that the evidence to establish probable cause is there, and that a Grand Jury indicts said former President. So far as I know there has never been a case where such a thing was done. President Ford's pardon of President Nixon stopped any Federal prosecution of him. I think there have been cases were former US Judges, after impeachment, were criminally prosecuted. But that is not quite the same thing -- no one claims that sitting judges are immune to criminal charges. To be clear this would not apply just to issues that a President had been impeached for. A former President is no different from anyone else in this respect. Any such person can be prosecuted if there is probable cause, and convicted if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal violation of some law, even if the violation occurred while the president was in office.
Perjury is not 'not telling the truth'. It requires (in most jurisdictions) being proven to have deliberately lied under oath. As Xavier pointed out, you are not on oath when entering a plea (among other reasons, you would be required to incriminate yourself). Secondly, "I am not guilty" could mean anything from "the prosecution wrongly think that what I did is illegal" to "this law is unconstitutional" even if the facts are not in dispute; either may be mistaken without being a lie. If the facts are in dispute, the jury will have to deliver a verdict that implies (it does not state, let alone prove) that they disbelieve one party; deliberate falsehood, whether by a defendant or a police officer, would be several steps beyond that.