I read a fictional story about this assault/lawsuit, and I'm really stuck on some of the details. I'm trying to figure out if it was actually written correctly or not...
So this guy assaulted another guy, pretty much. It was a pretty messy assault, though, and they both wound up with injuries although the victim didn't get the chance to fight back before the attacker stopped. Nobody witnessed the assault, but the police showed up after the fact and arrested the attacker, but not the victim.
A while later, the victim is subpoenaed to court. The attacker has a lawyer. He didn't hire the lawyer, though, one was provided for him. The attacker is being charged with attempted murder. When the victim is called to the stand, he says it wasn't attempted murder. The thing is that the attacker and the victim were actually friends, they just got into a heated argument, and the one guy just took it too far and attacked the other guy. On the stand, the victim says that the attacker wasn't trying to kill him, he was just trying to beat him up a little to scare him off, pretty much.
The judge concludes that it wasn't attempted murder, but aggravated assault, and the attacker is sentenced to six months in prison. The attacker is sent to a holding cell, requests to speak with the victim, and the victim shows up. The attacker is then sent to prison, gets out six months later, and life returns to normal.
Did any of that make even the slightest bit of sense? Some questions in specific...
Why did they only arrest the attacker and not the victim?
Can the victim be subpoenaed to court? Could they have actually done anything without the victim present?
Is the victim's testimony enough to actually reduce the sentence down to aggravated assault? Is six months too short of a time?
Would the attacker have been put in a holding cell? Could he have requested to see the victim? This seems like the "one phone call" thing to me, but is that possible here?
Would the attacker just go back to normal after his release? Would there be any further punishments or restrictions?
Could the victim change his testimony afterward and reopen the case? Or would that be unreliable?
How many years would the attacker have been facing for the original attempted murder? Why did it take so long for the case to start?
I think there are some details I'm forgetting, so I'll edit this if I remember more. Thanks in advance.