Burglary, Arson, Home Invasion Accused of home invasion: can I sue for pain/suffering, lost wages, lawyer fees, court costs

I

i3uddha

New Member
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
7 months ago I was wrongfully accused of a serious crime that I did not commit. In Massachusetts, Home Invasion carries a minimum penalty of 20 years in prison. The wrongful accusation and erroneous filing of charges has left a scar on both my psyche and criminal record, which I am in the process of attempting to have expunged/sealed. My (very expensive) Harvard attorney did not offer advice relating to potentially suing the police department or court for wrongfully or exaggerated charges. I was arrested, placed in jail, bailed out, placed on an ankle bracelet for approximately 7 months while the case dragged on. After the initial false statements by unreliable and untruthful witnessess, the supposed witnesses did not show up to court to testify. The initial charges of home invasion were later refiled and reduced 7 months later to much less significant charges - breaking and entering and A+B with a deadly weapon and attempt to collect a drug debt. Is the refiling of the charges direct proof and evidence that the police negligently or intentionally filed severe charges based on my history with the local department? If I could produce a witness or witnesses who would testify that they heard police unfairly incriminate me in a prior case, would that have any effect on the ability to sue? I am dumbfounded how I can be arrested, spend time in jail, bail out on a requested $50k and spend months on house arrest and following months on the bracelet, worrying about charging it every night. Facing GPS alerts which interfered with my professional job as a dental hygienist. Suffering emotional torment over the thought of the possibility of 20 years in prison for something I didn't do. I understand I could sue the witnesses, but by the police filing amended charges which were significantly reduced and the case dismissed the same day i was re-arraigned on amended charges, is that enough evidence of misconduct? Knowing it took 7 months and filing those severe charges based on the statements of uncooperative and unreliable witnesses?
 
i3uddha said:
Is the refiling of the charges direct proof and evidence that the police negligently or intentionally filed severe charges based on my history with the local department?
Click to expand...

No.

i3uddha said:
If I could produce a witness or witnesses who would testify that they heard police unfairly incriminate me in a prior case, would that have any effect on the ability to sue?
Click to expand...

Not really since what happened in some previous case does not tell anyone what happened in this instance, and it is what the police and prosecutor did in this instance that would be at issue.

Discuss this matter with an attorney who litigates civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (known commonly simply as § 1983 claims) as that is most likely area of law (along with any similar state law) that would apply to suing the police and/or prosecutor over this. The police and prosecutor do not have to be right that you committed a crime. As long as they followed the proper steps and had probable cause (which is not a very high standard) for the offenses charged that's good enough. The attorney you consult can look over the entire history of events and determine if there is something worthwhile to pursue in litigation against the police or prosecutor.
 
Just because you were not convicted does not mean you were wrongfully accused. I doubt your complaint would get anywhere, but you could sue if willing to throw more money at it.
 
i3uddha said:
the police filing amended charges which were significantly reduced and the case dismissed the same day i was re-arraigned on amended charges, is that enough evidence of misconduct?
Click to expand...

No.

The police don't file charges against anyone.

The police investigate and file a report with the prosecutor.

The prosecutor decides to file charges based upon the police report and the law.
 
If anyone has ever represented a defendant in a federal district court, superseding indictments are commonly used by US attorneys all over this land.

As Lucy often did Charlie Brown, the feds move the goal posts regularly.

The only thing that matters to a defendant before the federal bench is whether a verdict issues with an acquittal or a guilty verdict.
 
mightymoose said:
The complaint is primarily about the original "false" charges being reduced and wanting to take action on the original charges for which there was no conviction.
Click to expand...

I missed this:

i3uddha said:
charges which were significantly reduced and the case dismissed the same day i was re-arraigned on amended charges,
Click to expand...

I don't see the police or the prosecutor being liable if they relied on statements made by a complainant.

If the complainant made false statements, the complainant is who the OP should aim his lawsuit at.
 
adjusterjack said:
If the complainant made false statements, the complainant is who the OP should aim his lawsuit at.
Click to expand...

The picture painted by the OP seems to be a tad off the mark.

The charges were simply reduced at trial, or upon refiling new charges, followed by a new trial.

The top post is somewhat hard to follow, but the gist of it is a charge was lodged, later reduced.

In the end, OP was convicted of something, apparently burglary and assault & battery.

As far as proceeding against the witnesses, they are protected because their statements were made as part of a judicial proceeding.

The original charge, "home invasion" was reduced to a lesser and included, burglary and the assault/battery.

I see nothing upon which one could successfully argue the OP was illegally convicted, and seek a civil judgment against the witnesses, victims, prosecutor, or the police.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top