22

united-states Bob could do any number of things to try to convince someone to prosecute Alice: call the prosecutor's boss, or the district attorney (or their equivalents in DOJ if it's a federal crime), or his elected representatives; he could also go to the media, or post on social networks... But if none of that works, the article is right: Prosecutors can'...


19

In some jurisdictions, California probably being the most well-known in the US, there are Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which allow a defendant to file an anti-SLAPP claim (for sake of clarity I'm going to keep calling that person the "defendant") when the plaintiff's suit appears to have been filed for the purpose of ...


16

Not all illegal things are crimes. Lack of evidence. They are asked to testify, and they say "what I said in my book was a lie". There is no general law against lying, except when under oath. Statute of limitations. Saying "10 years ago I did smoke drugs" means that any offence is no longer prosecutable. Lack of details. Which jurisdiction were they in? When ...


9

The other answers are all generally correct. I'll add just a few additional points. But suppose Alice is a billionaire and she bribes the local prosecutor to not prosecute. What happens next? Presumably, if Bob can show the prosecutor was bribed he can make a new accusation against the prosecutor, but what if the bribe was clandestine? Presumably the ...


8

TL;DNR: YES! A "motion to dismiss" a suit asks the Court do exactly what you say. It asks the Court to dismiss the suit as legally invalid, even if the facts alleged in the suit are correct. A motion to dismiss is usually filed in response to the initial complaint. A defendant can ask for dismissal on a variety of grounds. These range from, "this court ...


7

Police have discretion whether to arrest and prosecute or not. In exercising this discretion they may take into account whether victim is identified and what he/she says, but there are no legally enforceable rules around it. Discretion is discretionary after all. Other factors that may influence the police's decision whether to arrest notwithstanding whether ...


6

Prosecutorial discretion is a thing, however, Bob still has some recourses. In the U.S. the Prosectors are typically elected at the state and local level, and where they are not, they are appointed by elected officials. So if Bob is civic minded, he might spend some time campaigning for political rivals (either primary challengers OR general election ...


5

Not only is it legal for the DA to decide which cases his office will prosecute, that is his primary function. The job of a DA is to decide if, when, and how cases will be prosecuted.


5

In the United States, jeopardy attaches to a criminal trial when a jury is empanelled, the first witness is sworn in or guilty plea is accepted. Before that point the prosecution can dismiss the case without prejudice, allowing for charges to be brought again. After that point the prosecution can only dismiss the case with prejudice, effectively resulting ...


5

Mr. Comey answered this in his testimony. LANKFORD: Okay. Fair enough. If the president wanted to stop an investigation, how would he do that? Knowing it is an ongoing criminal investigation or counterintelligence investigation, would that be a matter of going to you, you perceive, and say, you make it stop because he doesn't have the authority to stop it? ...


5

The short answer is "yes". There is U.S. Supreme Court authority that supports this position, In particular, United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475 (1967), Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 599 (1965), and Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959), stand for the proposition that a defendant may not be punished for actions taken in good faith reliance upon ...


5

In many countries, an individual has the right to raise a private prosecution if the public prosecutor decides not to pursue a case. This is generally expensive, as with all things legal. The reason for public prosecutors after all is to prevent justice being limited to the rich and denied to the poor. So there's a pretty high barrier to this - and since the ...


4

Once a case has been commenced, you can definitely lose, or you can probably lose. If you decline to proceed, you definitely lose. If you proceed, the jury (or judge as the case might be), might find some witnesses more believable than others and might find that the forensic evidence is not as convincing as it seems. Empirical evidence suggests that ...


4

There is no requirement to interview the victim and/or the suspect prior to filing charges. Often statements are taken from the parties involved/witnesses by police and presented to the District Attorney's office as evidence. However charges can be filed without either party being interviewed, especially by the DA. This can often be the case in things like ...


4

Are there any legal constraints on the number of times that a defendant can be retried following mistrials due to hung juries? No. A fairly recent case in Louisiana, for example, involved someone who had been tried perhaps half a dozen times resulting in a mix of hung juries and reversals of convictions on appeal. Or is the only practical constraint the ...


4

Overcharging does confer an advantage on the prosecution, specifically, it enhances the prosecutor's position in plea bargaining, allowing the prosecutor to "compromise" while still getting the actual conviction sought. There is also a more tangible issue. If a prosecutor brings a charge that carries the death penalty as a potential sentence, the ...


4

The question reads: I gather from the answer to the linked question that what happens in principle is that the police would investigate, and the local prosecutor would file charges against Alice. This is not correct even in principle. At least in the united-states, the local prosecutor might or might not file charges. Reasons why a case might not be ...


4

In united-states this varies significantly by state, but I am at least familiar with provisions in pennsylvania law for judicial review of refusals to file criminal charges. Pennsylvania Rule 506 allows anyone to file a private criminal complaint, and requires a state attorney to timely either approve it for prosecution or to explain the reason for not ...


3

It is generally legal in the US for the government to investigate a person for committing crimes, and to prosecute them if there is sufficient evidence that they committed a crime. The criminal indictment, returned by a grand jury in US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, can be seen here. This alleges conspiracy to violation of 18 USC 371, 1030(a)(...


3

Based on the comments, it appears you are interested in a mechanism for preemptively declaring that your conduct is not wrongful without waiting for someone to bring charges or a lawsuit against you. In most common-law jurisdictions, a litigant who learned that a prosecutor was preparing charges against him, or that someone else was preparing a lawsuit ...


3

Garrison claimed that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, involving various meetings and other overt acts that allegedly took place in New Orleans. If that were true, then the conspirators who did those things would have been guilty of criminal conspiracy under Louisiana law, and the New Orleans District Attorney would be able to prosecute ...


3

On the contrary, it is unethical for a prosecutor to bring a case where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor is an officer of the court and as a representative of the state, their primary concern is the guilty are convicted and the not guilty are not.


3

The prosecutor always has an advocate The prosecutor in a criminal matter is the State. Since the State is an artificial entity it has to act through agent(s) who advocate for it. In Commonwealth countries the State is synonymous with the Crown - I suppose HRH Queen Elizabeth II could prosecute every case personally but she’s a very old lady with a lot of ...


3

Your premise that "the law did not exist previously" is, from the perspective of how courts work, mistaken. The law always existed, it's just that some people (maybe even judges) mistakenly thought the law didn't exist (actually, "meant something else"). Many people have wrong ideas about what the law says, but ignorance of ...


2

is this enough evidence to charge and/or use this conversation as evidence? obviously they also have the testimony of the accuser. Short Answer Yes. And, the accuser's telephone data, together with the accuser's testimony, is admissible evidence which is sufficient to bring charges. Long Answer To bring charges, all that the prosecutor must show to proceed ...


2

No Federal prosecutors are representatives of the Attorney General of the United States and act on his/her behalf: not on their own account. From the DoJ website: This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of ...


2

IANAL As per Florida Title 46 Statute 782.04 a murder must be premeditated or must occur during the accused committing another felony (you can read through the statute and let me know if I'm wrong). As per Florida Title 46 Statute 782.07 manslaughter is non-justifiable homicide that cannot be charged as murder. Based on these documents, it's likely the ...


2

A prosecutor has the discretion to change his mind up to the point that the defendant enters his plea in court and the judge accepts the deal. The American Bar Association standards on fulfillment of plea discussions (3-4.2(c) is stronger, not approving of backing out of a deal unless the defendant breaches the agreement or there are extenuating ...


2

Yes and no. Unlike prosecutors in countries like the United States, but like other civil law countries, prosecutors in Argentina have a legal duty to prosecute all crimes, and in general, do not have the authority to unilaterally determine that a law is unconstitutional (ordinary courts in Argentina also lack the authority to judicially review the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible