R
Ryno
Guest
- Jurisdiction
- British Columbia
I am writing a screenplay, and I was just wondering if I could get some advice on the criminal case scenario, and what a prosecutor would do.
Basically in my story a cop is on patrol, and he decides to stop somewhere for lunch or something like that. In a secluded area he is in, he gets a glimpse of a two men search another for a wire, or what he thinks that might be happening since he is a cop, and knows where to search for a wire. The guy is clean, so the two men put him in their car, and drive off. The cop decides to discretely follow in his unmarked car, to see what's up, since he thought of it as suspicious.
He follows them to cabin, and waits for them to go in. He then decides to walk around the cabin to have a closer look, but does not trespass into the back gate of course. He hears what sounds like to faint cries and muffled struggling, from the other side of the wall. He sees a small crack in the wall, low to the ground of the cabin. He looks inside the crack which looks into the basement.
He sees a tied up woman being held hostage, who is blindfolded and gagged, and she is panicking and struggling. The guy who was searched for a wire, is about to kill her, it looks like. It's a gang who have recruited a new member, to do a 'blood in' test. 'Blood in' is a term for when in order to join a gang, you have to spill the blood of another person. That's what they are getting the new recruit to do, and they searched him for a wire before bringing him there, to make sure he is not an undercover cop, or an informant or anything like that.
The cop outside, looking through the crack, calls it in, when he sees the tied up woman about to be harmed. The cop ends up saving the woman and arresting one of the suspects. The others get away, but commit a number of crimes as they get away, such as resisting arrest, reckless endangerment, and distruction of evidence, if that's a crime. However, the victim who the cop saw, held hostage, is not cooperating, saying that she wants no part in it, and that no kidnapping every happened. But she doesn't give any statements and avoids talking to the police, just saying those lines, and that's it for an explanation.
The suspect also remains silent and gets a lawyer.
So if this were the case, would a prosecutor have enough to prosecute the one suspect, without a victim? He has the eyewitness testimony of the cop, but the defense could argue that there is no proof of a crime, if the police cannot produce the victim that was supposedly a victim who was rescued. Would the prosecutor go ahead with the case, and just go with the cops' eyewitness testimony, if the cop says he saw a woman who was kidnapped? Or would he take the risk of forcing the victim to testify, with a subpoena, even though he is not sure what she is going to say on the stand?
The prosecutor wants the suspect to feel pressured into cutting a deal to rat out the others who got away mainly. So if this is the case, would a prosecutor subpoena a witness, not knowing what she is going to say, if he feels he may need her as back up, in case the cop's word is not enough for the judge have probable cause?
Basically in my story a cop is on patrol, and he decides to stop somewhere for lunch or something like that. In a secluded area he is in, he gets a glimpse of a two men search another for a wire, or what he thinks that might be happening since he is a cop, and knows where to search for a wire. The guy is clean, so the two men put him in their car, and drive off. The cop decides to discretely follow in his unmarked car, to see what's up, since he thought of it as suspicious.
He follows them to cabin, and waits for them to go in. He then decides to walk around the cabin to have a closer look, but does not trespass into the back gate of course. He hears what sounds like to faint cries and muffled struggling, from the other side of the wall. He sees a small crack in the wall, low to the ground of the cabin. He looks inside the crack which looks into the basement.
He sees a tied up woman being held hostage, who is blindfolded and gagged, and she is panicking and struggling. The guy who was searched for a wire, is about to kill her, it looks like. It's a gang who have recruited a new member, to do a 'blood in' test. 'Blood in' is a term for when in order to join a gang, you have to spill the blood of another person. That's what they are getting the new recruit to do, and they searched him for a wire before bringing him there, to make sure he is not an undercover cop, or an informant or anything like that.
The cop outside, looking through the crack, calls it in, when he sees the tied up woman about to be harmed. The cop ends up saving the woman and arresting one of the suspects. The others get away, but commit a number of crimes as they get away, such as resisting arrest, reckless endangerment, and distruction of evidence, if that's a crime. However, the victim who the cop saw, held hostage, is not cooperating, saying that she wants no part in it, and that no kidnapping every happened. But she doesn't give any statements and avoids talking to the police, just saying those lines, and that's it for an explanation.
The suspect also remains silent and gets a lawyer.
So if this were the case, would a prosecutor have enough to prosecute the one suspect, without a victim? He has the eyewitness testimony of the cop, but the defense could argue that there is no proof of a crime, if the police cannot produce the victim that was supposedly a victim who was rescued. Would the prosecutor go ahead with the case, and just go with the cops' eyewitness testimony, if the cop says he saw a woman who was kidnapped? Or would he take the risk of forcing the victim to testify, with a subpoena, even though he is not sure what she is going to say on the stand?
The prosecutor wants the suspect to feel pressured into cutting a deal to rat out the others who got away mainly. So if this is the case, would a prosecutor subpoena a witness, not knowing what she is going to say, if he feels he may need her as back up, in case the cop's word is not enough for the judge have probable cause?
