Falsely arrested!!!

testamony alone is how most convictions take place. Now, testamony from informants without cooberating evidence obviously has less impact, especially when they are informing to get out of trouble. This is still bizarre to me. I've never heard of police trying to make a drug case without first makin a buy.
 
Went up today. Talked to the ADA. Best he said he could do was drop them to "violations". I did not accept any plea bargain because I am innocent.

I asked the ADA how can I be arrested and going through all of this on statements. He said, "There are two under oath statements that say roughly the same thing." What I don't get is everyone knows anyone can lie under oath. It's happens all the time. No one can prove these people are lying, or telling the truth. "Under oath" means SHIT.

If this doesn't get cleared up before January 3rd, MY SHIPPING DATE, I have to hold to leave and go to trial. Fuck that, I'm pissed. I want to get out of this shit hole with these lying punks.

My recruiter is probably speaking with the ADA now trying to work something out. If I get convicted, which will be falsely convicted, I will be prosecuted by the Navy as well!!!!!

My future will be ruined because of a lie.....
 
I or my mother does not have money to spare. I shouldn't even need a lawyer for this bullshit.

We don't apply for a free public attorney either. My mother makes just above the deadline :-\

Public defenders are still $400 or more.
 
You will have to do your best to convince the judge that you need a free public defender. Perhaps you can come up with a list of expenses that show your mother and you don't have any extra money right now. If you neatly print up a monthly budget showing total take home pay and expenses, and that leaves no room to spare, it could be influential. Most of the people who come before the judge do little or no preparation, and your efforts could pay off. The judge might have the authority to appoint one for you regardless of the guidelines.

Whatever you do, don't plead to any reduced charges, and some way, somehow, get a lawyer.

Your recruiter might be able to help you by getting the D.A. to closely examine their case. There's a chance they'll drop the charges if they have too many doubts about it. If they don't, this probably won't be resolved before your shipping date, but there's still a chance. Keep your chin up and keep working it on all levels.

I know this is not fair, but the fight right now is not about what's fair, it's about getting you out of the system with a clean record.

EDITED TO ADD: You may want to look over this Legal Aid Society web page and make some phone calls, especially if you're in NYC. If you're not in NYC, call one of the numbers and ask how you can get help where you're at - they may have a number for you to call or some ideas for you:
http://www.legal-aid.org/DocumentIndex.htm?docid=59&catid=34
 
Last edited:
JuicyJay said:
I or my mother does not have money to spare. I shouldn't even need a lawyer for this bullshit.

We don't apply for a free public attorney either. My mother makes just above the deadline :-\

Public defenders are still $400 or more.
Click to expand...

There's something wrong with this. If you don't have any money to spare, you should get a PD, and it shouldn't cost you anything.

Where are you in NY? (Feel free to PM me if you don't want to reveal that info, and you probably shouldn't.)
 
If you are under 18 you automaticaly qualify for a pd. if you are over 18 they cannot attach your mom to your situation. The only things that determine whether you qualify for free legal is your income and assets. If you own your own vehicle some judges here in TN will say you can afford an attorney because they say you can sell you car. Either way. GET A LAWYER. Sell you TV, radio, turntables, anything legal to pay for a lawyer.
 
So, if you're charged wrongfully and proven innocent, but had to sell your car to indulge the prosecution, do you get that money back?
 
I can imagine two instances where it would be possible to get your defense money back:

- You have enough evidence to sue the witness(es) who lied to the police or who falsely testified against you in court. This would be in civil court, and the witness(es) would have to be wealthy enough to pay the damages if you won.

- You could prove that the police or prosecutors targeted you out of a policy of illegal racial discrimination (or similar policies that slip my mind right now) or that they intentionally lied or falsified evidence. The latter two are very hard to prove.

Both of these would be potentially lengthy and difficult lawsuits and would only be worth it if you had the money to hire lawyers and wanted to do it out of principle, or if you had spent a huge sum (hundreds of thousands or more) on your defense.

But as MahanAtma said, upon being exonerated (found not guilty or otherwise freed of the accusation), the defendant doesn't get any money back from the government and probably not even an apology.
 
- You could prove that the police or prosecutors targeted you out of a policy of illegal racial discrimination (or similar policies that slip my mind right now) or that they intentionally lied or falsified evidence. The latter two are very hard to prove.
Click to expand...

Forget discrimination. You can have a perfectly good reason for charging someone and still be wrong. This is a prime example of failing to take responsibility for actions done against another person.

It's hypocrisy like this that sets a poor example. When a system that purports to uphold fairness and justice, doesn't lead by example, how can they expect others to do the same?

"Yes, officer, I did hit n' run. Yes, I understand that I was wrong, and the accident was my fault. But, you see, I was driving the speed limit and watching all my mirrors. So, you're just going to have to let me go."
 
I don't quite understand what you're saying, Kyk. It seems like you mean that the police/prosecutors should be liable for making a mistake in enforcing the law and filing criminal charges. I.e., they were following proper procedures but just got it wrong. In such a circumstance, the government is shielded from liability, as are its individual employees. This is just a risk we all take by living under our legal system--that the government could get it wrong even though they are following all the rules.

My point was you would only have a lawsuit in this instance IF you could actually prove the police and/or prosecutors targeted you out of an illegal, discriminatory policy (such as prosecuting black people but letting white people go for the same offense) or that they intentionally lied. In other words, if the government did not follow its own rules.

The fairness and justice part is about the government following its own rules. The system has room for improvement, but if the rules are genuinely followed, I think it's pretty good in practice.

Did I misunderstand you? Or, if not, how would you change the system? Would you have the government be liable for bringing charges that later turn out to be wrong, if from all appearances the charges looked valid to the government?
 
Johnny, I don't see how I can have proof that they lied.

Honestly, I believe I can get one person to admit they lied. With my persuasion techniques I know I can get one person to come out.

This one other person, the one that this whole shit started from would be more of a trouble. He knows he is lying, I know he is lying..... I have not spoken to him in over a year I'm sure and I really don't want to speak with him. I would tell him we need to talk away from other people. I would tell him that I know he's lying and he knows he's lying.

IDEA! Tape record it and get him to admit he's lying.....

I would tell him he would have to lie under oath again if I went to trial. Lying under oath is illegal and he would be arrested and prosecuted (that's what I would tell him true or not). If, he came out and told the police that he was lying he would not get in any trouble (true or not, I don't care) and wouldn't have to give the names of the people he was protecting and just happened to throw my name out. He doesn't give a shit about me, obviously. He's only 16 so even if he got prosecuted for purgury, he's not getting in that much trouble:\

If I got both of these people, or even one to admit they were lying.....would this case be thrown out?:(
 
JuicyJay, I was really speaking more hypothetically about the idea whether you could recover your defense expenses after being found innocent or having the charges dropped. But in the real world, in your case, getting your defense money back won't happen.

But you have a good chance of beating these charges or even having them dropped. Having them dropped would be the big win because it would allow you to get on with your life right away. If you could get even one witness to write a signed statement that they lied, or even only that they felt pressure to give up names and that they gave your name even though they never actually bought drugs from you (doesn't have to use the word "lie" if the rest of the statement makes the lie clear), this would be huge. Perhaps your military recruiter could help you take this statement to the district attorney. Make sure you keep a photocopy of whatever paper you get before giving it to anyone else.

As far as tape recording, different states have different laws about what's legal to secretly tape. In California, for example, you can't tape a private person without their knowledge if they believe the conversation is private. In Nevada, as far as I remember, you can. I don't know if I could tell you to tape this person without knowing whether the actual taping is a crime. According to this web page: http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm#State%20Laws%20(Table),
in New York you can secretly tape a phone call to one of the witnesses, because only one party to the phone call needs to be aware of the taping. This implies you could do the same in person. If you read my below post of New York Penal Code articles, it appears that you can legally tape record your conversations with these witnesses either in person or by phone. Just like with a written statement, having this kind of tape would be extremely helpful to you.

MahanAtma and Banquo, what do you think?
 
Last edited:
Maybe I should just start my own thread.

Did I misunderstand you?
Click to expand...

Nope, you understood perfectly.

Or, if not, how would you change the system? Would you have the government be liable for bringing charges that later turn out to be wrong, if from all appearances the charges looked valid to the government?
Click to expand...

Precisely. The fact that this concept seems so foreign to you, makes me think something's definitely wrong here.

To counter, do you think that because the government makes the rules and policies, that they should be exempt from them? To clarify, I'm not saying that bureaucrats should be made accountable despite being the ones to draft and enforce these laws. I'm saying that they be made accountable because they are the ones to draft and enforce the laws.

If I do all I can to ensure safety, and I make a mistake that costs someone damage, I am liable. Whether I'm driving my car, maintaining my property, or running my business, I am accountable. It's how the world works.

I'd be glad to know that my tax dollars were going to reimburse those falsely charged who have been dragged through the legal system. It would give me satisfaction to know that the person who was put in jail for 10 years and later exonerated, was given a large cash settlement. Even on a smaller scale, I would feel justice was served when the innocent are taken care of.

So to answer your question, yes I would change the system.
 
And just because I really want to drive this home: I'm not suggesting that the legal system could stand to improve, or isn't perfect - but seriously flawed, in this particular way.
 
For reference:
* New York State Consolidated Laws
o Penal

ARTICLE 250
OFFENSES AGAINST THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Section 250.00 Eavesdropping; definitions of terms.
250.05 Eavesdropping.
250.10 Possession of eavesdropping devices.
250.15 Failure to report wiretapping.
250.20 Divulging an eavesdropping warrant.
250.25 Tampering with private communications.
250.30 Unlawfully obtaining communications information.
250.35 Failing to report criminal communications.

S 250.00 Eavesdropping; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a
telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender
or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or
receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal
operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of
the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to
its tariffs or necessary to protect the rights or property of said
corporation shall not be deemed "wiretapping."
2. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional
overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the
consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat,
by means of any instrument, device or equipment.
3. "Telephonic communication" means any aural transfer made in whole
or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of
communications by the aid of wire, cable or other like connection
between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the
use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by
any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the
transmission of communications and such term includes any electronic
storage of such communications.
4. "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at any
point between and including the point of origin and the point of
reception.
5. "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals,
writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted
in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic
or photo-optical system, but does not include:
(a) any telephonic or telegraphic communication; or
(b) any communication made through a tone only paging device; or
(c) any communication made through a tracking device consisting of an
electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the
movement of a person or object; or
(d) any communication that is disseminated by the sender through a
method of transmission that is configured so that such communication is
readily accessible to the general public.
6. "Intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication" and
"intentionally intercepted or accessed" mean the intentional acquiring,
receiving, collecting, overhearing, or recording of an electronic
communication, without the consent of the sender or intended receiver
thereof, by means of any instrument, device or equipment, except when
used by a telephone company in the ordinary course of its business or
when necessary to protect the rights or property of such company.
7. "Electronic communication service" means any service which provides
to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic
communications.
8. "Unlawfully" means not specifically authorized pursuant to article
seven hundred or seven hundred five of the criminal procedure law.

S 250.05 Eavesdropping.
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in
wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting
or accessing of an electronic communication.
Eavesdropping is a class E felony.

S 250.10 Possession of eavesdropping devices.
A person is guilty of possession of eavesdropping devices when, under
circumstances evincing an intent to use or to permit the same to be used
in violation of section 250.05, he possesses any instrument, device or
equipment designed for, adapted to or commonly used in wiretapping or
mechanical overhearing of a conversation.
Possession of eavesdropping devices is a class A misdemeanor.
 
I am having one of the witnesses confess that it was a lie and he was pressured.

Anything specific I should have him write down. I have to meet him at 4, so I have 50 minutes.....

Anything special I need? I'm just going to have a piece of paper and have him write on it. Should I take a picture, video?

Should I involve the police with this? Should I call the DA and tell him I have a witness that confessed to lying?

I don't want THIS person to get in trouble for lying, because he was ( :-/ ) my best friend. I want the other person to get in trouble.....

Thank you everyone for the help[!!!!
 
I don't really have time to respond, so hopefully someone else will chime in.

But for now...

If you took a video of him talking to the camera and/or to you, and him describing how he was threatened with legal action and pressured to give names, and that he gave your name even though he never bought drugs from you, and that he knows of no one else who bought drugs from you, and that he never saw you sell any drugs, that would be great. In order for him not to get in trouble himself - and if he signed a statement they could get him in greater trouble for lying - he must emphasize how he didn't have an attorney there and he was under a great deal of pressure and extremely scared and this was the reason he said your name. You can't be certain that he won't get into deeper trouble, but if this amount of pressure really did happen, and he had no attorney present, then there's a good chance they won't get him for perjury (which would be serious, but no less serious than your being charged with drug dealing - and if you think about it, he gave your name while you did not sell drugs).

A written statement saying he gave the name out of fear and pressure and that he never bought drugs from you, and that he knows of no one else who bought drugs from you either, and he never saw you sell any drugs, would also be great.

Both the video statement and any written statement should contain the date and time it was recorded/written, as well as his name and address.
 
Well, I called him up and met him. I brought a friend as a witness and my camera to provide more proof.

I had the witness with the original statement write, with the time, date, and his name;

"I am voluntarily writing this statement in contrary to the statement I gave to Trooper *******. I have not been bribed or forced to write this statement. When I gave the statement at the barracks, I felt pressured into giving the statement. At this time, I was nervous and was quoted and said things that were not true. I realize now that this false statement given to the Trooper is not true. I have not seen ******* sell marijuana to anyone including myself. I do not want to be charged with perjury. I felt the right thing to do is tell the truth."

His initials on a line to provide to unauthorized addition to his statement.

"This statement is being witnessed by D last name and J last name."

I had him sign it, the witness, and myself with all of our phone numbers. I took pictures of him signing the document.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the witness to this signing, D....he wrote with time, date, and full name;

"I am voluntarily giving this statement as proof of being a witness to the revised statement given by ******. I have not been bribed, or coerced into giving this statement or being a witness."

A line with his initials and all three of our signatures and phone numbers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For my own, the original witness had to leave so I could not have him as a witness.

I wrote with time, date, and my full name;

"I am writing this statement to confirm I did not force or bribe ***** or ***** into writing their statements. I did not tell **** or ***** what to write. I asked ***** why he lied on his statement. He said "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to lie. I was scared and nervous." I believe ****** meant no harm and today I asked him to tell the truth and fix his statement. I understand ****** may have to testify in court and I trust he will tell the truth, opposed to his false statement given to Trooper ******.

With a line and my initials.

"This statement is being witnessed by D last name. Both of our signatures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All have pictures with them, to further prove I did not write these statements.

I really hope these will help. If for some reason these do not help, I can have this person come into court with me and testify that their original statement was indeed false.

I will call the ADA on Monday....I have court again on Tuesday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top