My brother in law was cited a few months ago for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, he thought his friend was 21. The kid turned out to be 20 and in possession of a stolen firearm. When questions came up about the weapon the kid said my brother in law had it. Unfortunately the weapon had been used to shoot up someone's tractor. Based on the say of this kid, the law has said my brotherin law will be charged for this crime. He says he never knew about any tractor shooting, when he was in the state they did go shooting at rabbits. He has several witnesses willing to testify that he was never near a tractor. But would that be sufficient enough?
2006-12-15 10:13:08 · 8 answers · asked by lil_sis_87747 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There is more to the story than just he said he didnt do it. The other guy was not even asked anything about the gun till last month and then yesterday my brotherin law recieves a letter in the mail stating what hes being charged with, no warning no phone call nothing til yesterday. The incident happened back in September. Oh and you can get contributing to a minor if youre 21 or older and anyone under 21 is with you when there is alcohol around.
2006-12-15 10:33:56 · update #1
Ok maybe it isnt too clear what he is being charged with...he is being charged with the vandalism of the tractor, willful destruction of someones property. They arent charging him or the kid that I am aware of for the stolen firearm. He was charged and paid his fees for the delinquency to a minor charges.
2006-12-15 11:04:44 · update #2
reasonable doubt only applies to jury trial
2006-12-15 10:21:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Quite frankly, it just isn't that simple and no that isn't enough. That is NOT reasonable doubt, yet. To be reasonable doubt, it must address a required element of the crime. I don't know what Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Minor requires where your brother is being charged. I could tell you if I did. However, it may only require an Act and no mental state (no knowledge) at all. That would be a "Strict Liability" crime. In most states Statutory Rape is also a strict liability crime. It just depends on the statute your brother is being charged under. Without knowing the jurisdiction or the exact charges, I can't tell you that such is reasonable doubt. It is VERY likely that it does NOT create reasonable doubt because it does not address a required element of the crime.
2006-12-15 10:52:05 · answer #2 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The defendant (or his lawyer) must prove reasonable doubt. This means the jury or judge must believe that there is reasonable doubt.
Just saying, "it wasn't me!" isn't enough.
Whether the charge is federal or local has no bearing on the reasonable doubt angle.
Tell your brother in law to be careful who he hangs out with in the future. Stay away from low-life types who shoot tractors.
2006-12-15 10:23:08 · answer #3 · answered by krinkn 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ummm if you're in the states you have to be under 18 to be a minor. If the person is 20 they are a legal adult so a charge of contributing is illogical.
You could drive a tractor through that statement bulletholes and all.
2006-12-15 10:22:28 · answer #4 · answered by sprydle 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, techincally he can. While your brother in law can easily prove he had nothing to do with the actual shooting of the tractor, that isn´t what he is being charged with. He´s being charged with aiding in some way towards the shooting. Probably they mean he held the firearm in some way (kept in his house, car, whatever). What your brother needs to prove is that he did not know about the fire arm OR that he did not know it was an illegal firearm/his friend was not allowed to be in posession of it and that he had no idea what his friend was planning to do with it. Sadly, not knowing his age isn´t going to be a factor in this one.
2006-12-15 10:20:07 · answer #5 · answered by phoenixbard2004 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
data isn't actual evidence. can not even believe you imagine that. virtually all situations are determined on circumstantial data. look at each and each and every of the data related to her continuous stream of lies related to her daughter! Lied about the nanny, lied to her mom and father about the position she replaced into, by no skill once confirmed any sorrow or difficulty related to Caylee's disappearance or maybe even as her remains were got here upon. No, she had to confer including her boyfriend! "in case you've eliminated all different opportunities even with remains must be the fact". There are 0 different conceivable causes to each and everything she did and did not do interior the weeks she replaced into lacking. The regulation does not say that in case you could arise with a topic, no matter if it defies common sense or plausibility then you truly ought to discover the guy not to blame. If that were the case in elementary words those who can tutor they're to blame ought to ever be convicted!
2016-11-30 20:03:38 · answer #6 · answered by papen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your brother in law's story sounds like BS to me, but I am not on the jury. If your witnesses can convince a jury at trial to believe the oh so original "it wasn't me" excuse then he will get off.
but you also dont know what kind of evidence the police have yet either. he is still screwed if he had or was using an illegal firearm.
2006-12-15 10:18:23 · answer #7 · answered by Steve 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am pretty sure that if they have enough reasonable doubt, he will be concidered innocent.
2006-12-15 10:18:24 · answer #8 · answered by Aleah Marie LL 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋