A Person's Word

[curiouscar20]

Jurisdiction

Kansas

Hello!

I have a theoretical question; nothing has happened, but I am curious regarding circumstances my mom's friend is involved in.

If someone who has been arrested for a criminal act (and there's proof of that person committing it) makes a statement to law enforcement naming another person as involved, does that other person automatically get arrested and in trouble? What happens?

Say there is 0 evidence tying the named person to the crime or place (since they weren't involved (though the police don't know that so that's why they have to investigate bc of the arrested person's claim), what happens to the named person? Should they still get a lawyer in case of getting falsely convicted ?


Thanks for any knowledge offered, I have no clue about any of these things! (Probably because I stay out of trouble )

 

[adjusterjack]

If someone who has been arrested for a criminal act (and there's proof of that person committing it) makes a statement to law enforcement naming another person as involved, does that other person automatically get arrested and in trouble?

Automatically? No.

The police will make a thorough investigation of the allegations and the prosecutor will use the results to determine if an arrest needs to be made.

Say there is 0 evidence tying the named person to the crime or place (since they weren't involved (though the police don't know that so that's why they have to investigate bc of the arrested person's claim), what happens to the named person?

Probably nothing. Police tend to arrest people when there IS evidence, not when there ISN'T evidence.

Should they still get a lawyer in case of getting falsely convicted ?

People don't necessarily need lawyers until the police come to the door and say "We'd like to talk to you about..."

At that moment the proper response should be "I invoke my right to an attorney." Then you shut up and call one.

Watch this video. You'll learn plenty.

 

[zddoodah]

If someone who has been arrested for a criminal act (and there's proof of that person committing it) makes a statement to law enforcement naming another person as involved, does that other person automatically get arrested and in trouble?

No. Virtually nothing is "automatic."

What happens?

Any one or more of thousands of things might happen. Details matter.

Say there is 0 evidence tying the named person to the crime or place (since they weren't involved (though the police don't know that so that's why they have to investigate bc of the arrested person's claim), what happens to the named person?

Any one or more of thousands of things might happen. Details matter.

Should they still get a lawyer in case of getting falsely convicted ?

"They"? You mean the person (singular) who was accused by the person who was arrested? Should that person get a lawyer solely because of that accusation? Probably not. However, if more happens than a mere accusation, then the person might want to retain legal counsel.



ftfy

(Please don't do that again.)

 

[curiouscar20]

No. Virtually nothing is "automatic."



Any one or more of thousands of things might happen. Details matter.



Any one or more of thousands of things might happen. Details matter.



"They"? You mean the person (singular) who was accused by the person who was arrested? Should that person get a lawyer solely because of that accusation? Probably not. However, if more happens than a mere accusation, then the person might want to retain legal counsel.



ftfy

(Please don't do that again.)

Please don't do that again?
Do what?

Change my words. You're free to write an opinion contrary to mine. I don't mind that.

 

[zddoodah]

ftfy

(Please don't do that again.)

Seriously, Jack?! But it's ok for you to edit my post so that it's not clear what I did or was saying and makes it appear I wrote something I didn't write?! I guess whoever runs this site has given you the authority to do that, but it's BS to edit my posts without being clear what you are doing.

The police will make a thorough investigation of the allegations and the prosecutor will use the results to determine if an arrest needs to be made.

This is wrong. Neither "adjusterjack" nor anyone here can intelligently opine as to what some unknown police officers/department in Kansas will do in response to a hypothetical statement. The police might make an investigation, and it might be thorough. Or they might completely disregard what the arrested person said and do nothing. Or they might feign doing a thorough investigation or only do a cursory investigation. If the police investigate, then they have discretion to make an arrest, or not, and/or to refer the matter to the prosecutor, or not. The prosecutor does not generally make the decision about whether a person is arrested or not. That decision is typically made by the cops. If the cops refer the matter to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor may decide to file charges, or not.

Please don't do that again?
Do what?

Change my words. You're free to write an opinion contrary to mine. I don't mind that.

To the OP: "adjusterjack" is apparently using his "super moderator" authority here to edit other folks' posts and add his own comments so that it appears those comments were written by someone else. He did it with my post and apparently did it with yours as well. Just so you are aware, when I previously responded, I quoted a paragraph from "adjusterjack's" response above and changed some of the words (within the quote box and in a way that was clear about what changes I had made) and then typed "ftfy" (which, if you're not familiar with it, is an acronym that means "fixed that for you"). Apparently "adjusterjack" didn't like that I did that and edited it out of my response and added his little parenthetical "Please don't do that again" comment, but without it being clear to anyone but me that those were his words directed to me, and not my words directed to you.