What the thread title asks.
Is this a “just wondering” kinda question or are you looking for advice on an actual legal matter?
What type assault? There are quite a few levels of assault.
Just wondering. I knew some people (friends of my nephew) that were at a party about 5 years ago. One of the kids (18 year old college kids) at the party got into a fight with another kid there. One of the guys passed out later (after what he says was only a few beers). Now all these years later he believes that someone slipped him a roofie or something. He doesn’t have any tox screens that would prove it, but a girl that was at the party said she heard some guys were going to drug him and then have someone else beat him up. All stupid stuff, but the mom of the kid that got into the fight and passed out, is all up in arms and is trying to get the local DA to look into the case. A lawyer has contacted by nephew (who was at the party) wanting to interview him.
Not to hijack, but how is asking a question with a simple answer asking for legal advice?
If I ask how many outs are in an inning, am I asking for baseball advice?
[Moderating]
The question as stated in the OP is fine. However, responses on the specific legal case mentioned in the later post would be entering into the realm of legal advice. Please refrain from commenting on the specifics of this matter, and restrict responses to matters directly related to the OP.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
IANAL - I would think that “right to a speedy trial” should come into play somewhere. Unless something has changed, you can’t lay charges over something that happened 5 years ago unless it’s new infomation. Plus, people’s recollections are liable to be hazy at the 5 year point. MY thought (again IANAL) is that a person laying a complaint 5 years after the fact would probably be greeting with skepticism or indifference by the DA?
The drugging would be something separate. Whether someone is beat up or not is irrelevant to drugging; it’s not like there’s a single offense, “drugging and battering”. Without confessions they wouldn’t prove conspiracy, so that just leaves the (alleged) drugging itself. Not sure what the statute is for “administering a noxious substance”, or whatever, but absent some proof other than “she said”, I would imagine a case would be difficult to prove esepcially if there’s no evidence that a noxious substance existed. Even evidence could be tainted after 5 years… It’s not like someone preserved the bottle he drank from or whatever; and if the complaintant produces it, prove he didn’t tamper with it… If the state convicts people on what one someone thinks they heard 5 years ago and zero other evidence, time to move to a different country.