If someone admits to a crime, writes and signs a statement, does there have to be a witness to be convicted?

Question

I live in Dayton TN. . Here's the deal. This white woman named June Griffin is totally against Mexicans being here. She went into a Mexican owned and operated store in town harassing the clerk, who couldn't speak much if any english. She ranted and raved and told him that if he couldn't speak english he should go back to Mexico. She yanked down the mexican flag hanging in the store, damaged the door to the store on her way out, and took the flag home and wrote "remember the Alamo" on it. She then contacted the newspaper for a picture of her holding the flag, and article. She also somehow obtained the man' s cell phone number and called and left messages on his phone. When it came time for court, the witness to the crime could not be found and the case was dismissed. How in the world can you committ a civil rights crime, admit to it, and have it dismissed because the witness could not be found? Is that really legal.

It makes it even worse because this "woman" is a known non-caucasion race hater. She even has one of those lighted signs outside her home that she often puts her "race hate" comments on. She doesn't blatently call other races names, but puts up things like or something to the effect of "if you are one race and involved with a person of another race, when you die you will go to hell". Not the exact words, but same difference. And being that fact known about her, there should have been a conviction. What would cause a sworn and signed statement of a civil rights crime to be supressed by a judge? There was a picture of her on the front page of the newspaper of her holding the mexican flag that she stole, and wrote "remember the alamo" on. Come on people. A crime-is a crime-is a crime. Being a black woman, if I went out and murdered a white woman, and there was a witness, would my case be dismissed in court because the witness suddenly disappeared? Redneck justice prevails once again.

Answer 1

Not having a witness does not necessarily prevent a conviction. The details in you question do not mention a signed statement. Contacting the newspaper for a copy of a photo and article does not qualify as a confession. Our court system was designed to protect people from false convictions. This admittedly results in not convicting some people who are guilty.

Answer 2

What crime, exactly? From your description, it sounds like the only crime was perhaps petty theft for stealing the flag, and perhaps criminal damaging. More likely only a civil (not criminal) issue on the damage though. At any rate, misdemeanors.

Unfortunately, being publicly obnoxious is not a crime.

And just as a side thought....who was the witness? The storekeeper? While I don't condone the woman's actions, I do agree with her sentiment. Have you considered the possibility that the witness couldn't be found because they are here ILLEGALLY? And didn't want to get involved in the system? Not making acccusations, but you must consider the possibility. Sorry, but I am among the millions of Americans who are sick of the Mexican invasion. Come hear legally, and learn English, I welcome you. If not, return from where you came.

At any rate, this woman is an idiot. And since she contacted the newspaper everyone knows she's an idiot.

Answer 3

Well first there has to be evidence that is able to be admitted in court. Just because she writes a statement and signs it, does not mean it will be admitted into evidence. You can have someone on video doing a crime and if that video is not allowed to be used as evidence, they jury would never know it happened.

So yes if the people who saw it happen would not come to court and testify, Yes I can belive the case would be dismissed.

Answer 4

The confession must have somehow been supressed. Without the supression, then without any witnesses, the state has no way of proving their case, so the case must be dismissed.