Harassment, Stalking, Misconduct counter charging after a not guilty verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rubyindarough

New Member
This is a 6 month long harassment coming to a head; I asked for a jury because the police didn't help, and I felt out gunned by the time I got to the hearing.

That's coming on the 7th, but the city prosecutors package all but hands him to me with the plaintiff's written statements on the incident, so my defense on every point is seemingly seamless, and he doesn't stand a chance if the law is followed and his own testimony is heard and read.

My question is- since I wasn't aware of the laws he was breaking at the time, but just following my instincts of right and wrong, and it turned out that I was indeed within my rights to take the action I took (pushing him out the door after repeatedly asking and insisting that he leave my rental house when I felt he was putting I and my house mates into certain and imminent danger by voicing his intent to botch a repair of a sparking 220 electrical outlet);

When is the right time to have him arrested for fighting me? And how tasteful is it to throw the entire book at him? I have him clear on 3-4 municipal counts, and a couple zoning and fire code violations, and he has taken every available pot shot at me for about 5 months now, so I feel no inclination to be nice.
 
Don't count your chickens before they've hatched. It ain't over till the fat lady sings. I have not seen her, yet!

If you prevail, then you'll have plenty of time to deliberate and decide what to do next.

Be advised, these little cases have a way of going curiously awry. It ain't over, Rover! Cool your jets, just cool your jets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Judge wouldn't take one of my 5 jury instructions, there were 8 women on the rack, and they deadlocked! It was kinda fun except for the stroke symptoms and the knotted stomach. The city prosecutor was about 19 years old, so she was a hissing kitten. Her office (hopefully) will be pushing her to make him drop it, because they already know I'll ask for a jury- no way a judge is going to advocate physical aggression on a man by a woman. Do you know how that stuff usually goes?
 
Rubyindarough said:
The Judge wouldn't take one of my 5 jury instructions, there were 8 women on the rack, and they deadlocked! It was kinda fun except for the stroke symptoms and the knotted stomach. The city prosecutor was about 19 years old, so she was a hissing kitten. Her office (hopefully) will be pushing her to make him drop it, because they already know I'll ask for a jury- no way a judge is going to advocate physical aggression on a man by a woman. Do you know how that stuff usually goes?
Click to expand...

Yes, trying your first case is a rush.
Once you've done it, you're hooked.
I've only tried one case without a jury in my life.

I suspect they'll drop the case after this devastating loss. If they don't, get 9-10 women on your next jury, if you can.

Good job counselor. For your first time out, this is a great result.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What makes you think you can have the other guy arrested if the police have already investigated and they and the prosecutor apparently found you to be the party most liable? Chances are they will not act against the other party.

You can, however, see if there is grounds to sue the other guy for ... something. Not sure what, unless he lied and you can PROVE that he made an intentional lie to the police or the court KNOWING it to be a lie. If he told what he believed to be the truth from his perspective, then all because you are not convicted does not mean you have any cause of action against him.
 
CdwJava said:
What makes you think you can have the other guy arrested if the police have already investigated and they and the prosecutor apparently found you to be the party most liable? Chances are they will not act against the other party.

You can, however, see if there is grounds to sue the other guy for ... something. Not sure what, unless he lied and you can PROVE that he made an intentional lie to the police or the court KNOWING it to be a lie. If he told what he believed to be the truth from his perspective, then all because you are not convicted does not mean you have any cause of action against him.
Click to expand...
Because the police were wrong, and the prosecutor was doing her job. That's what the system is for, right? And what a jury is for, so I can tell my story to peers and not just a jaded tired cop who doesn't want his friend getting in trouble.
To get to the truth?
 
also he did lie a LOT on all kinds of documents and in the first hearing, so for that I definitely have him. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew he was wrong- luckily I have all of that too.
 
Rubyindarough said:
Because the police were wrong, and the prosecutor was doing her job. That's what the system is for, right? And what a jury is for, so I can tell my story to peers and not just a jaded tired cop who doesn't want his friend getting in trouble.
To get to the truth?
Click to expand...
You cannot force the police or the prosecutor to take anything to a criminal trial. You can force a civil trial (provided you have a case) but not a criminal one. If the police and the prosecutor do not feel they have a case to pursue, no amount of screaming and yelling will get them to pursue it.

You can contact the police and the prosecutor and ask them to look into your claims, but unless you sue the other party you cannot have any real say in the outcome.
 
Yes Sir, I think I understand that. You're saying that I can't have him arrested on the same charge he called through the police department, but that I have to pursue that through a civil case?

I do plan to sue, and it's a good case. All the points were tested on a 6 person jury back i april (I was rookie, and asked for the moon, so they heard all the points), but that jury was ready to give it, he was all over the BS meter, changing his stories two and three times. Yes I have a good case, but it's getting to look like a boys against girls thing, and I wasn't going there.

So if I understand you right, I have to press the charges inside the civil suit?

Thank you for responding,

Ruby
 
What I am saying is that if the police and the prosecutor are not willing to pursue criminal charges (so that he can go to jail) then you are left only with a civil suit (for money).

If he has no money or assets, then it might be a waste of time. But, if you can win a judgment against him, maybe you can one day collect. Who knows?
 
CdwJava said:
What I am saying is that if the police and the prosecutor are not willing to pursue criminal charges (so that he can go to jail) then you are left only with a civil suit (for money).

If he has no money or assets, then it might be a waste of time. But, if you can win a judgment against him, maybe you can one day collect. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Thank you. Yes, he has property, so I could conceivably collect.

And I plan to. This guy attacked then hassled, then unhomed me. All because I embarrassed him and confronted him about fixing what he'd promised to fix for almost two years. His patterns are clear and gross.

And now I'm mad.
So the civilized way to address suspected tyranny is with this great system that was carefully written in order that a common person can have their story heard.
When I felt prejudice in how the landlord, then the police, then the judge were dealing with me, I asked for a jury of my peers because I thought they would hear me as a group, giving me a better chance to get a voice to join mine.
 
A jury is impaneled as part of a trial, not to hear about how someone felt they were wronged. If no civil tort exists, or no crime has been articulated, then there is no chance of a jury.

Being wronged does not mean that a crime happened. And there may be no civil avenue to pursue that has a reasonable chance of success, but that's up to you. I would strongly recommend you run it by an attorney first so that you know what kind of case you have - if you have a case at all.
 
CdwJava said:
A jury is impaneled as part of a trial, not to hear about how someone felt they were wronged. If no civil tort exists, or no crime has been articulated, then there is no chance of a jury.

Being wronged does not mean that a crime happened. And there may be no civil avenue to pursue that has a reasonable chance of success, but that's up to you. I would strongly recommend you run it by an attorney first so that you know what kind of case you have - if you have a case at all.
Click to expand...
No offense, but I don't have to be a lawyer to know if I have a case. All I get from a lawyer is what they are willing to do for their paycheck- the same as a carpenter, and some of them aren't good at it.
I had "a case" of a friend 8 yrs ago that 3 lawyers wouldn't take because they didn't see an easy payday in it. It took a year and 3 months, but I got her the debt she demanded plus 4 thousand for the time and energy we spent on it.

This system is built so that justice can be sought even in the face of disinterest and and the invisibility of the poor and illiterate. It's not just for lawyers, though I was blocked at several turns with, "You're lawyer needs to ask for that."
Even in the Supreme Court web site, self-representation is described as a mental illness.
It's no wonder the poor don't fight in court much with this paradigm in place.
 
Rubyindarough said:
No offense, but I don't have to be a lawyer to know if I have a case.
Click to expand...
No, you don't, But, if you are not well versed in tort law, you may never be able to get a case filed or before a judge. Is it possible? Sure. But, by and large pro se litigants fall flat.

If you want to give it a go, good luck!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top