What are the consequences (if any) of admitting to a crime one did not commit? Say that Vicky the Victim is murdered by Mark the murderer. However, Mark's best friend Fred doesn't want Mark to go to jail. So Fred admits to the murder, trying to take the fall in Mark's stead. In the worst case, obviously, Fred is convicted for the murder and serves the relevant murder sentence. But if, somehow, it comes out that Fred was innocent of the crime, and he was actually trying to take the fall for Mark, then what consequences could Fred face?
A confession is (usually) taken after the court finishes its pre-trialing stage. There is a weightage and importance of such confession determined before the calculation of the gravity score of such crime. If the attorney somehow (fakely) proves Fred as the killer, Mark is declared innocent, and later on its discovered that Fred is innocent; the court can take some action against Fred. It would be first checked whether was Fred in a logical state of mind or not. If being manipulated by Mark, it would not be their fault of Fred. The court will also most likely see the age of the confessor to determine the importance of this. Here is a source from the National Registry of Exonerations which states the age of crime, and the percentage of groups with false crime declarations: One reason is that minors can be easily psychologically manipulated, and so by chance Fred if under 18 would not be considered to give any worth of confession unless proven to go against him. In some cases, the individual who made the false confession may be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice, particularly if their false confession led to an innocent person being convicted or if their false testimony impeded an ongoing investigation when the individual is not a minor. This is covered by perjury, a crime of expressing fake statements. In United States Code, Chapter 79 of Section 1632, it states: (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States. The following law only applies to a sensible adult, who has intentionally, without a psychological circumstance, made a false statement to defend someone. It is hard later, for the prosecutor to prove the claimant innocent if the confession has solid ground and worth. Note that though false confession can come under perjury crime, an exemption exists for minors or those psychologically unwell or influenced. It reminds us of Miranda v Arizona, where Miranda, an inmate in prison cased over by Phoenix Police (Credits:@TannerSwett) who would torture an innocent inmate to confess a crime. In collective terms, it was called Miranda Warnings, where the inmate was warned, using torture to confess fakely. It would be clear from torture. In the 1936 case Brown v. Mississippi, which was the first time the Supreme Court excluded a confession from a state court prosecution, this was the issue. For days, three suspects had been tortured. The deputy in charge testified when asked how hard one of the defendants had been whipped: Not too much for a Black person; not nearly as much as I would have done if I had been in charge. An image of courtesy, The Crisis Magazine 1935: The Supreme Court passed American reforms where Miranda was passed, and torturing was banned with evidence for both interrogation and confession. At the time Miranda was written, more &quot;modern&quot; methods of questioning were being used: rather than beating, isolation, deception, and exhaustion. It seems unlikely that an innocent suspect would confess to a serious crime if they were not subjected to torture or other forms of violence or death threats. Confessions are extremely potent forms of proof of guilt for precisely this reason. To sum up, we conclude: If Fred was a stable adult, he is punished under the perjury crime If Fred is a minor or not stable psychologically, he is dismissed with no legal action taken against him
england-and-wales No. Reconciliation between victim and attacker has no bearing on the guilt of the attacker. It may have a bearing on the decision to prosecute: A victim can be forced to testify, but they may well not make a very convincing witness if they are. Also, in past times (when the police were the prosecutors for most crimes), they often had a &quot;least said, soonest mended&quot; approach to domestic violence. It may also have a bearing on the sentence. Note: England and Wales is a jurisdiction where prosecutions can occur without a complaint (in general).
The police (and any other involved public agencies) do not work for Steve. They make their own decisions. You didn't specify a location, and requirements to consent to a search vary by location. It wouldn't be surprising, though, if Steve can't legally consent to a search of someone else's room (but possibly could consent to search of common areas). One possibility you don't seem to have considered is that the police or prosecutor would, if Steve is willing to testify, use Steve's testimony as probable cause to get a warrant. Then they could obtain text messages from Mike's service provider (even if he's deleted them from his phone), search his room without his consent, etc. Details again vary by location. Finally, any jail/prison term is typically up to a judge or jury, not the police. Pre-trial detention is typically up to a judge or magistrate. (Also, outside the scope of your question, but if there is any chance Steve has allowed himself to become involved in the misdeeds, even slightly, Steve would be wise to talk to a lawyer. Or if he suspects the police could believe that.)
Firstly, there is no jurisdiction in the US where rape is a potentially capital crime, and murder is not - so you are discussing a hypothetical (and rather implausible) jurisdiction. Given your jurisdiction is hypothetical, you can make the law be what you would like. Secondly, duress is accepted in almost all jurisdictions as a defence to a charge of anything except homicide (and some jurisdictions allow it to reduce the severity of a homicide charge). Courts can be reluctant to accept a charge of duress, but a bullet wound would probably be persuasive. I don't know if someone who had just been shot would be physically able to perform though. The precise crimes the perpetrator is guilty of would depend on your specific jurisdiction, but I would expect at least: rape (because they organized it) kidnap shooting the brother
You are conflating the crime against the state of possession stolen goods with the common law tort against the owner for conversion. To your questions: How would this proceed? It seems like it would be very difficult to prove (short of getting public surveillance footage) that I even bought the item. If you read the second paragraph of the page you linked it says: In many jurisdictions, if an individual has accepted possession of goods or property and knew they were stolen, then the individual is typically charged ... If the individual did not know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Proof of the crime involves a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of evidence of both the fact that you have the goods and that you knew they were stolen. If you become aware that they were stolen (e.g. the police tell you) and try to keep them then you have just committed the crime. Proof of the tort requires a "balance of probabilities" standard of evidence that you have the goods and that they belong to someone else; your knowledge that they were stolen is immaterial. In the first instance, the police would probably knock on your door, tell you why they were there and ask if the version of the story they have from the thief is essentially true. What happens next depends on your response: "Yes, I knew it was stolen; you better arrest me and I will plead guilty." This will play out as you expect. "Yes, I didn't know it was stolen, I will go and get it for you." You return the goods, give a statement and may have to act as a witness in the prosecution of the thief. You are down $1,000 but are now older and wiser. "No, I have no idea what you are talking about." Well, you have now committed the crime of hindering a police investigation and have also committed the crime of possessing stolen goods - you can no longer claim that you didn't know the goods were stolen; the police have told you they are. What happens next depends on if the police believe you or the thief. Surely they couldn't/wouldn't get a warrant to search my house? Want to bet? They certainly have enough to get a search warrant if they want one (probably). Whether they seek one probably depends on the value of the goods, how busy they are and how much you pissed them off. Could I be prosecuted if I didn't know it was stolen? Not if you return it as soon as practicable after being made aware that they were. The scam This seems like a lot of work for a very small return - spend your time worrying about things that are more likely to happen. Good Title All of this is tied up with the concept of good title. Basically, you cannot gain good title to property from someone who does not have good title themselves; if you buy goods from a thief you do not own them. For example, if A has good title to the goods, B steals them and sells them to C who sells them to D then A still owns them and can demand their return from D, D could demand the return of their money from C and C could do likewise with B but as far as A is concerned it doesn't matter that C &amp; B have lost money; that is simply too bad for them.
Murder is Murder Adding all the elements of murder are proven beyond reasonable doubt then the person gets convicted. The fact that they were a sibling would be considered in sentencing as it always is.
No. Causing someone "pain and suffering" is not against the law; it is merely one kind of damages that can be awarded when someone has done something that is against the law. You may, for instance, endure pain and suffering from a car accident or shooting, in which case you could collect damages for your pain and suffering after proving that the other party committed the torts of negligence or battery, which are illegal. But if you were enduring pain and suffering from the last episode of Lost, you could not collect damages for your pain and suffering because it is not against the law to write a crappy finale. So in your case, cannot sue for pain and suffering based simply on the existence of a secret audio recording. North Carolina allows secret audio recordings, and it does not make exceptions for audio recordings that hurt someone's feelings. But to go beyond your explicit question, there still remains the possibility that you could pursue a legal action. If the other party used that recording in a way that violated the law, that might give rise to a tort that would support an award of damages for pain and suffering. If they publicly distributed a recording of themselves having sex with someone, that might constitute the tort of public disclosure of private facts. If they edited the recording to make it sound like someone had said something that they had not and then gave it to someone else, that might be grounds for a libel action.
The facts of the flower pot would determine the outcome. The legal question is whether the owner was &quot;negligent&quot;. A claim of ignorance is insufficient, what matters is whether the owner departed from what an ordinary reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances. You can write dozens of scenarios that yield different conclusions. For example, was the area underneath the flower pot a place where no reasonable person would be expected to be? Did some other person surreptitiously place the pot in a location, or did they release the moorings and give it a shove? How is it credible that the owner was not aware that there was a flower pot on the balcony? Res ipsa loquitur is not applicable since accidents happen. Things fall all the time, they do not necessarily fall because of something that the person directly controls, you have not proven (and we can't assume) that the victim is blameless, and the defendants explanation is quite plausible. You can of course rewrite the scenario to make it clearer that this is blatant negligence. A starting point would be to say exactly how the pot fell and why the victim was under the pot.