Typically in USA law, which felonies are considered offenses against the state, and which require that some citizen complain that they have been the victim of a crime? In the former case, if a prime witness would be a person who was the subject of the crime, what if they refuse to testify against the accused? Would a District Attorney drop the case as unprosecutable, or would they compel testimony?
Federally, state-by-state, or both?
IANAL:
As you said, it is the state that prosecutes a person. They do not need someone to “press charges” if they know the crime has been committed.
All you can do is call the police and file a report.
If you decide to not be a witness the district attorney needs to decide if they can successfully prosecute the case anyway. If they cannot the DA will likely drop the charges. (e.g. a domestic abuse case and the only witness to the abuse refuses to testify)
I think telling the police you want to “press charges” only signals to them that you will be a willing witness in a prosecution (if it gets that far).
There are many examples of someone going to law enforcement with evidence of a crime and nothing happens.
Murder victims typically don’t file a complaint with PD or testify at trial
But when they do…
I don’t think any crimes actually require a someone to file a complaint to prosecute. It’s going to be difficult or impossible to prosecute certain crimes in certain situations without a complainant but that’s a practical requirement, not a legal one. It will be hard to prosecute a car thief if the victim doesn’t testify that they didn’t give permission to drive their car - but it won’t be impossible if another witness testifies that they witnessed the owner being forced out of the car at gunpoint. I might not be willing to testify against my husband who beat me up - but if someone else saw it ( and it happens more than you would think) their testimony is enough.
IANAL, but I’ve watched a number of YouTube court videos, and that is a problem, especially with cases of domestic violence. One prosecutor talked on the channel of the difficulty they have with those cases.
I saw one case where they victim wasn’t cooperating, but had given a statement to the police, who had taken pictures of her injuries.
There were questions about how much of the officer’s testimony could be allowed because of hearsay.
With murder victims, there usually is substantial forensic evidence associated with them as a victim, so metaphorically they do testify at trial.
Is it not the case that you (anybody) cannot refuse to testify in a criminal case? If you do so once subpoena’d you can be held in contempt? The problem being that picking on a victim of a significant crime could be seen as cruel and the resulting testimony may be unproductive?
In the American system one can plead the Fifth- that answering the question would be being compelled to testify against oneself. In which case the prosecution has the option to guarantee immunity to remove that.
You are correct that usually you can’t refuse to testify in a criminal case. But, assuming the person can be subpoenaed, there is still the question of what they are going to say. If you’re a prosecutor and your star witness/victim might say something like, “I can’t remember what happened that day. I can’t remember anything”, you probably don’t want to waste time in bringing that case to trial, absent some really compelling other evidence. A spouse can also refuse to testify against another spouse. It comes up frequently in domestic violence cases (there are differences about how far this goes in some jurisdictions).
And as I understand, the judge can hold an in camera hearing to have the witness explain why they would incriminate themselves - “I might make a mistake or forget and say something incorrect under oath” as I understand is not sufficient reason.
In my state the only time a citizen can be the complainant on a criminal complaint is if it is a misdemeanor. We don’t use the term misdemeanor but it’s the same thing. The investigating officer or detective is the complainant on felony charges (again not a term we use but whatever). On the docket it’s not Smith v Jones with Smith as the victim, it’s NJ v Jones.
I’ve seen a non-cooperative victim compelled to testify once in 25 years. The judge wanted her to recant on record so any change of mind down the road wouldn’t bite the prosecutor or me on the ass. The court is too busy to deal with uncooperative victims. They are too busy to waste time on losing cases. On domestics that are remanded back to municipal court they usually come to an agreement to postpone the case for 90 days or more and dismiss if there are no further problems. It’s a little bit better than an outright dismissal.
Usually not much. A little different now that there are body cameras. A lawyer can speak towards that. You still need the victim to testify. The defense can’t cross examine a video.
If watching politicians and wealthy people on trial for something saying, “I don’t remember,” seems to cover a lot of ground. Just stick to that no matter what.
Yes. I don’t understand why Cathy Hutchinson’s first lawyer hasn’t been disbarred for telling her to “not remember”.
Tangentially, it sounds like the hearsay rule would make most “victim told me this” cases unprosecutable if the victim doesn’t speak up themselves.
Example: Alice is raped by John. Alice tells Mary that John raped her, however, Alice herself declines to testify in court or speak to police. Mary then testifies in court, “Alice told me John raped her,” but the court then says “That’s hearsay.” If enough time has gone by that forensic/DNA/physical evidence cannot be had, then this would be very difficult to prosecute.
Did the lawyer tell her to not remember things she said she remembered?
Because otherwise lawyers can walk a fine line. If you are required to tell the truth, and come to me seeking legal advice, I might tell you
He didn’t exactly tell her to lie - but she testified that he told her
the less you remember, the better
and
“They don’t know what you know, Cassidy,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t know that you can recall some of these things.”
Don’t know if he really said those things - but they go further than what you described.
I’m not sure if you did it on purpose but you just gave an example of the Fresh Complaint Doctrine. In sexual assault cases testimony of the first person the victim discloses the assault to can give testimony in court as an exemption to the hearsay rules. I believe most states have gotten rid of this exemption but it is still allowed in New Jersey.