if the only "evidence" someone has of a crime being committed is somone saying they saw the person do something can the "crimer doer" be convicted?
and what if the person that is being said committed a crime has multiple witnesses saying the opposite?
this is with no other evidence.
thanks.
2007-02-28 19:06:00 · 16 answers · asked by devin_schumacher 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I think that an eye witness who has actually seen the crime being committed & whose statements in court stand scrutiny of all cross examinations can lead a criminal to the gallows.
2007-02-28 19:13:37 · answer #1 · answered by pinu 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Firstly the Police does not convict a person, the jury does.
A good conviction would only take place if the investigation had corroborated the three basic elements : witnesses, evidence and/or confession.
This dose not mean that if you only had witnesses to a crime they would let you off, but a good investigator will always try to get the other two elements to build a solid case.
I'd be surprised if a jury would convict anyone with a witness testimony alone.
2007-02-28 20:14:26 · answer #2 · answered by pete 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Eye witness testimony is good but it is usually not enough to convict someone solely on. There has to be some other kind of evidence to support it (physical,circumstantial). If the person has other people saying the opposite there is a good chance that they will be found not guilty. Of course, this will depend on who the other people are. If they are the family or friends of the accused then their credibility will be called into question, and it will be up to the judge to decide if they are telling the truth.
You really don't give enough details about the circumstances to say for sure though.
2007-03-01 00:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by joeanonymous 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The police don't convict people. They arrest people. The court convicts people of crimes and imposes sentences. You can be convicted solely on the testimony of 1 witness, get a lawyer and request a jury trial. The other witnesses contradicting the accuser might be enough for 'reasonable doubt'.
2007-03-01 02:15:03 · answer #4 · answered by bugs280 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police do not convict anyone. That is the job of the Prosecutor and a Jury. Police can make an arrest based on a witness statement.
2007-03-01 04:01:55 · answer #5 · answered by Tom M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police don't convict anybody the court does. That's the problem. To many people blame the cops when crooks are set free. The cops job is basically over when the arrest is made, with the exception of testifying in court, if it ever gets there, all decisions as to the bond, bail etc. are made by the judicial system.
2007-03-01 02:19:50 · answer #6 · answered by watchman_1900 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds pretty weak to me, but more details would help. Is the only witness the victim? There is no crime without a victim. What kind of crime was it. Naturally there is no victim in a vandalism charge. If you could have someone convicted of a crime because you say they done it, we would all be in trouble.
2007-02-28 19:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by jwplaster 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, the police make the arrest, prosecution is the job of the DA. If it boils down to one person's word against another's, without any other evidence, the case in all probabilty will NOT go to trial.
2007-02-28 22:52:52 · answer #8 · answered by WC 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Police do not convict only arrest the Judge or Jury convict you!
2007-02-28 20:46:29 · answer #9 · answered by wise 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers. They make the decision, not the police. The police just does what it has to do in this case quite probably arrest the crime doer.
2007-02-28 19:16:27 · answer #10 · answered by Terry Z 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋