Does someone actually have to be in police custody before a trial can be held?

Question

Say someone is on the run, but there are hundreds of witnesses to the crime, it's all well documented, couldn't we just have a trial so WE know how much trouble that person WILL be in if we ever catch them? Maybe we won't ever get to lay our hands on Osama or God, but it just seems like we should have something in the books, for our own benefit, to show what kind of justice they OUGHT to see. Thoughts?

Thanks guys muey helpful.

Answer 1

No, there only has to be a warrant for their arrest and enough evidence for the trial. Many people have been convicted in their absence because they were not in that country at the time. But i suppose that some countries might differ in the ways they deal with these sorts of things.

Answer 2

It is possible to try someone in abstentia, however, such a trial, at least in the american legal system, is impractical and any conviction would be easily overturned on appeal as the constitution guarantees the right of the accused to challenge his accusers.

Answer 3

No, you won't be able to coach his dedication except he admits to it on the witness, another witness testifies to it, or you get the dedication checklist and introduce it into data. The information may well be the main suitable data. they might carry all the data you choose. in case you assume him to testify to this, he will the two lie or colour the reality to make himself seem stable. As for others attesting, maximum of what they know would be hearsay. and that they probably weren't recent for the full case (information, motives, signing of papers), so their testimony would be critically constrained, perhaps they might't testify in any respect. Have your atty get the dedication papers, the full record. Then he can bypass learn the father at length on the stand. ** observe: that is a wide-unfold communicate of the concern rely of your question and not criminal suggestion. interior of reach regulations or your particular difficulty might substitute the wide-unfold rules. For a particular answer on your question you could seek for suggestion from criminal assistance with whom you could communicate all the data of your case. Answering this question does no longer point out an lawyer-customer courting. **

Answer 4

As we learned with Andrew Luster, you can have a trial based upon the evidence even if the defendant is on the run. He was convicted before he was even caught. Though he fled during his trial.

Answer 5

Well, there is provision under the law for a person to be "tried in absentia" which means that we know he did it and we have the evidence, but he's physically absent so we cannot bring his a r s e into court for the proceedings. But certainly that isn't going to happen in the case of Bin Laden for a number of reasons. Bin Laden is not only NOT a citizen of the country seeking to bring him to justice, but he belongs to a religious sect that is totally opposite from the prevailing belief system of this country. Not for our benefit, but for the benefit of people in other parts of the world, it becomes a matter of vital importance to abide by another symbol of our Justice System..... "Justice must not only be done, it must be SEEN to be done". That means should Bin Laden ever be captured, as in the case of Saddam Hussein he will need to be handed over to those of his own kind for trial and adjudication by his peers. You cannot accomplish that by, say, trying the man, in absentia, in a country of which he is not a citizen, by people who are not even of his belief system. Because of the unique circumstances of Bin Laden's activities over time, it becomes even more important that the demands of justice must be met and satisfied in the eyes of his peers - people of his own origins, and before the world in general. America cannot allow itself to be accused of "railroading" the guy. Of course, exactly in the case of O.J. Simpson as a good example, there are going to be those around the world who will say that Bin Laden was a hero and a martyr if he ever comes to trial and gets executed. OJ got aquitted, of course, but that, too, was because by misfortune the people who formed that jury had already made up their minds, and they would not have found him guilty even if they had been shown video footage of him in the very commission of that murderous rampage. In the same way, there will be plenty of people who despite full knowledge of Bin Laden's guilt as charged will still support him because they hate America even more. That is why it is even more important for America to make every possible effort to show the world that justice has been served in the most fair and impartial way.

Having said that, I think the whole thing will be moot. It has been said that those who have been protecting Bin Laden will, in the end, if we ever corner him and his capture is imminent, kill him themselves in order to prevent him from the humiliation of capture, trial and execution. Not that I understand the logic of that. One would think based on their belief system, he'd get his 72 virgins anyway LOL.

Answer 6

no, we can't, the only thing we can do is have warrants, and penalties for evading that warrant only increases over time. a man and/or woman most be convicted from their peers. now i can't say that the justice system is infallible, but it's the best we can do so far.. well besides just going around and shooting the people we think are guilty.

Answer 7

I am not an attorney or an expert in (Constitutional) law buyt the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution states "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Answer 8

Even investigation or accusation can ruin a person's life.

So JC would NOT even accuse(law) anyone: John 5:45.

God did NOT send his Son to condemn(law): John 3:17.

That God in Christ did NOT law impute sin to them: 2Cor 5.

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 9

Well you go on over there and find you a nice slick riverbed rock and take the first toss. Look out they may both toss back.

Answer 10

Sure, but it wouldn't be "official." The person/entity has to go through due process first. Not that I believe in due process in all cases. ARRGH!