internasional dating register - Charged with intimidating a victim

There are two reasons that identity can be a legal issue even in cases where most people would consider it fairly easy to prove.

Second, when people think about what the police can show, they usually are not thinking in terms of "reasonable doubt." Even if the police are convinced about who was responsible, the Commonwealth still has to prove it, and if there is reasonable doubt, even convincing evidence is not enough.

The witness intimidation statute requires that the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intimidating actions, whatever they were, be done with the specific intent to impede obstruct delay harm punish or otherwise interfere with a criminal process or investigation.

If the police want to get information out of that person, or if they think that person is deserving of more punishment than those minor charges carry, sometimes they charge that person with witness intimidation under an 'obstruction of justice' theory.

These cases should be fought vigorously, and I have successfully argued motions to dismiss cases where police attempts to use the broad language of the witness intimidation statute to snare people who did nothing more than tell the police they were not guilty.

In Arizona, criminal charges pertaining to threatening and intimidating are taken extremely seriously.

Law enforcement and prosecutors alike will take a "no nonsense" attitude towards prosecuting those who have been charged.

Proving a person's intent is a particularly difficult to do, and often requires that the Commonwealth rely on "circumstantial" evidence which is often open to competing interpretations.

There might be dozens of reasons that someone says or does something, and the Commonwealth has to prove which one motivated the defendant.

If you have been charged with intimidation of a witness, contact my office immediately for your free consultation.

Tags: , ,