If someone was charged with say, assault and battery, would it be the prosecutor's role to investigate the case, or would it be the plaintiff's lawyer's?
What if the defendant claims that there is an accomplice to the crime? Who is responsible for looking into that?
2006-11-19 12:09:35 · 5 answers · asked by HY 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
A prosecutor is a public servant paid for with tax dollars to prosecute crimes. That is prosecute people who commit crimes and seek appropriate penalties on behalf of the community. Fines /jail, sometimes restitution. A prosecutor does not represent any specific victim, but is, instead, protecting the interests of the entire community. A prosecutor must prove his case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A plaintiff's attorney is paid to seek justice in the civil courts and is hired by the victim, and either paid by the victim in advance, or perhaps on a contingency fee arrangement if he/she is successful in winning the case. A plaintiff's attorney must prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, in other words he must prove that his client's version of the events is the more likely version based on the evidence presented.
Both have obligations to investigate their cases. However, the prosecutor's obligation is to the public at large and is held accountable in elections. The plaintiff's lawyer is an employee and is accountable to the victim / client until such time as that relationship is ended.
The same goes for the question of potential accomplice liability. The prosecutor looks at whether to investigate / prosecute in the context of a criminal case and his duty is to the general public, not to the victim.
The plaintiff's attorney owes his allegiance to his client and they can discuss the merits of examining / investigating potential civil liability of other parties for the injuries suffered by his client.
2006-11-19 12:20:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That depends on who is suing you. Assault an battery is both a crime and a tort. If it is a criminal charge, the state files suit and the prosecutor tries the case. The state has the burden of proving the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, and if successful, the courts can impose either monetary fines, jail time, or some combination of both. For really serious offenses, most states still have the death penalty as an option.
But assault and battery are also torts, which means that the injured party can also sue you in civil court. This means that the plaintiff hires a lawyer who gathers evidence and represents his client. The plaintiff has the burden of proving the case by the preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard than in criminal cases. If successful, the plaintiff can recover monetary damages, but there isn't any possibility of going to jail, much less getting executed.
"Accomplice" is a term usually used in criminal contexts, but in general, the party bringing the suit, either the state or the private plaintiff, is responsible for looking into that. In criminal court, the state brings charges against an individual or group of individuals, but the fate of each is legally independent of the others. So just because four people were involved in, say, a robbery, the state doesn't need to charge all of them if it doesn't want to.
In civil court, the defendant can assert that there are third parties that must be joined, meaning if the plaintiff is going to sue any of them he has to sue all of them. The burden of proof is the same.
2006-11-19 12:34:58 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the prosecutor has primary responsibility to investigate all aspects of the case, including the involvement of an accomplice.
The plaintiff's lawyer, and the defendant's lawyer also have a responsibility to their respective clients to obtain facts that could be helpful to their clients.
2006-11-19 12:16:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's simple. The prosecutor looks for evidence (including witnesses) benefitting the prosecution, and the defence lawyer does the same to benefit his side.
As for claims of an accomplice... unless the defence intends to claim the other guy did it all, or to seek a plea deal, better not bother with it, in both cases, the prosecution will want the case handed on a platter before they bother changing angles, unless their case against the accused was very weak to begin with.
2006-11-19 12:19:01 · answer #4 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is up to the prosecutor to prove you did it an the police
2006-11-19 12:14:08 · answer #5 · answered by bigdogrex 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋