later on an special unit finds a gun in the trash can the cop says he saw the kid run by...when asked if he ever seen the kid actually possess the weapon he asnwers no he did not..the kids fingerprints are not on the gun either.....what do you say guilty or not guilty..remember that the D.A. most prove that he had that gun beyond a reasonable dought...note it was dark.....and the kid has a prior felon for possiesion of a weapon..
2007-06-22 10:58:22 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I would not convict. It would be hard to toss it while running. Even if he did it, there is no evidence. Also I tend to question cop's testimony. Do you know how many people have been found innocent after years on death row based of a cop lying?
2007-06-22 11:03:37 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The question that needs to be answered is did the officer see the kid make any motions that could be seen as throwing or dropping an item in the area of the trash can. Just running past it wouldn't make it his, but the fact that he DID run past it, fleeing the police, and has prior possession charges does create reasonable doubt, but not beyond it yet.
2007-06-22 11:05:31 · answer #2 · answered by dchihouse 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the data and evidence speaks for itself. The kid's fingerprints are not on the weapon. That right there presents reasonable doubt that the kid had the weapon. It's just coincidental that he ran past the garbage can containing the gun.
2007-06-22 11:06:16 · answer #3 · answered by sonofstar 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First off my friend, learn to spell. Your grammar is terrible. No, if there is no evidence that he actually had the weapon then it can't be proven that the gun was in his possesion. Although, if he was standing next to the trash can, the state can then prove that if the gun was easliy visible from the top that he still possesed it since it was within reach. But as you have described it, I would say that the DA has an uphill battle.
2007-06-22 11:02:45 · answer #4 · answered by AAA 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Probably not guilty. One cop's visual testimony in the dark is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
2007-06-22 11:02:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the kid's prints aren't on the gun, it's not his gun. it doesn't matter what a cop saw. the kid may have a troubled background, but if the gun don't fit, you must acquit.
2007-06-22 11:06:29 · answer #6 · answered by mike s 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a possible source of doubt - whether it's 'reasonable doubt' would depend on the rest of the evidence.
2007-06-22 11:02:24 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
not guilty.
the kid wasnt seen with the gun and no fingerprints
2007-06-22 11:09:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not guilty ,theres a resonable doubt
2007-06-22 11:03:07 · answer #9 · answered by transplanted 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋