# Question about how the law works when it comes to witnesses in court.



## ironpony (Mar 13, 2020)

For my story, the villains want to kill a witness, to keep her from testifying in a case.  However, I am thinking legally, would that do any good?  The witness has already given a statement to the police when interviewed, so even if she is killed the court can admit her statement anyway.   So what good is it to kill a witness therefore, if they have already given a statement?  Unless there are other reasons to do so still?


----------



## RWK (Mar 13, 2020)

The time to kill a witness, if there is one, is before the police get ahold of them and get everything nailed down.

Keep in mind that the investigative process shown by Hollywood is incredibly speeded up. It takes 8-12 hours to properly process a murder scene, and it can take weeks to fully hammer how the who, why, etc.

Just because you ID the killer within the first 48-72 hours doesn't mean you're ready for an arrest, or even know why the deal went down. 

However, the real value isn't killing a witness, it is intimidating or bribing them to change their story, which utterly destroys their value and rips a hole in the prosecution's case.

While witness make for good TV drama, prosecutors prefer to base their case on forensics and investigative work, because it is much harder for the defense to disrupt those. Failing that, they prefer to 'flip' a participant, because then they have a witness they control.

A dead witness never changes their story or gets confused on cross.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 13, 2020)

Killing a witness would not only shut up THAT witness, but all of the others as well.
Also, the witness may still have info she has not revealed (possibly due to some self-involvement in the situation.)


----------



## ironpony (Mar 13, 2020)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Killing a witness would not only shut up THAT witness, but all of the others as well.
> Also, the witness may still have info she has not revealed (possibly due to some self-involvement in the situation.)



Oh okay well as long as they feel that it's worth killing her in case she hasn't told everything.  That would just be supposition on the villains part since they haven't read the statement.  As for killing her would also shut up the other witnesses, as well, she is the only civilian witness in the case.  The rest that are testifying are police officers and investigators, and the villains probably are thinking that they probably wouldn't be shut up, since they work for the police, right?



> The time to kill a witness, if there is one, is before the police get ahold of them and get everything nailed down.



But then again, in real life, why would their be a witness protection program if the witness has already given their statements.  So I guess criminals still feel like it's a good idea to kill them, even so therefore?


----------



## RWK (Mar 13, 2020)

ironpony said:


> But then again, in real life, why would their be a witness protection program if the witness has already given their statements.  So I guess criminals still feel like it's a good idea to kill them, even so therefore?



The witness protection program is for witnesses in Federal cases. It is a lifetime relocation. It protects them from revenge.

In over thirty years as a police officer, I never saw or heard of a witness being killed in a state case. 

Witnesses are the least valuable evidence available. Even an informant or flip is better.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 13, 2020)

RWK said:


> The witness protection program is for witnesses in Federal cases. It is a lifetime relocation. It protects them from revenge.
> 
> In over thirty years as a police officer, I never saw or heard of a witness being killed in a state case.
> 
> Witnesses are the least valuable evidence available. Even an informant or flip is better.



But what difference does it make if the case is federal or not?  The villains are not going to care which police organization handles the case, when deciding to kill a witness, are they?  It's like the FBI can say, "hey if we turn this case over to state police, the witness will be in less danger."


----------



## RWK (Mar 13, 2020)

ironpony said:


> But what difference does it make if the case is federal or not?  The villains are not going to care which police organization handles the case, when deciding to kill a witness, are they?  It's like the FBI can say, "hey if we turn this case over to state police, the witness will be in less danger."




It makes a huge amount of difference. The Feds have resources far beyond state or local agencies. 

OC types and the smarter brand of criminal will definitely be aware of of what LE agency is handling the case.

But like I said, killing witnesses isn't very common outside of Hollywood. A good defense lawyer can deal with a lot of civilian eyewitnesses, and simple intimidate will take away more.

I really recommend doing some serious research on the nature and authority of LE agencies (there are an estimated 55,000 autonomous agencies in the USA), and in prosecution of capital cases. 

In a seizure matter, on the other hand, killing a witness could be of critical importance, if you set it up right. Timing would be of the essence, though, because once past GJ the witness is off the hook.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 14, 2020)

Oh okay.  Well maybe my villains don't have to kill her, if the motivation is not quite high enough, but they can want to scare her into talking to find out what she told the police and a lot of the cat and mouse games will be her trying to evade capture, so they can find out what she told them, if that's better...


----------



## RWK (Mar 14, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  Well maybe my villains don't have to kill her, if the motivation is not quite high enough, but they can want to scare her into talking to find out what she told the police and a lot of the cat and mouse games will be her trying to evade capture, so they can find out what she told them, if that's better...



I suppose. There's countless movies covering that same ground, so take your pick.

You could have her hide with the Amish....8)


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 14, 2020)

RWK said:


> The witness protection program is for witnesses in Federal cases. It is a lifetime relocation. It protects them from revenge.



Some states do actually have their own forms of witness protection programs. I know California does, and I think Texas and several other big states as well. It's not exactly equivalent in scope and does not involve the Marshals, but witness protection does exist at the state level for state crimes, using state personnel and resources. 

It also does not have to be a 'lifetime relocation' at all. Protected witnesses can and sometimes do leave any kind of federal protection voluntarily at any time of their choosing, regardless of the circumstances or the wishes of the authorities. 



ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  Well maybe my villains don't have to kill her, if the motivation is not quite high enough, but they can want to scare her into talking to find out what she told the police and a lot of the cat and mouse games will be her trying to evade capture, so they can find out what she told them, if that's better...



You have a fundamental problem that the witness has _already _given a statement to police. Once a witness has provided recorded testimony (remember they don't just write this down, they use video recordings, etc) they are effectively participants in the case, unless the prosecution uses discretion not to use their testimony for some reason. Usually it's the defense that wants the witness physically in the courtroom so they can undercut their credibility to the jury, not the prosecution. 

Witness intimidation and bribery is far more common. As usual, I don't really get the whole premise here. As somebody who has worked in courtrooms I am trying to allow for the fact you are not all that knowledgeable about the law and taking cues from Hollywood, but even then it seems...scrappy. 

They want to find out what she told the police? Why? They already know what she knows, right? I mean, they know what they did and presumably what she _could _know, so for some reason they're starting out from the presumption she maybe didn't tell them everything. Otherwise, this would not be necessary. 

If they believe -- for whatever reason -- the witness might not have told the police everything, or not been truthful, presumably they already had some sort of relationship with this person? There had to be some reason for why she might have withheld information in the first place. Why she would be motivated to lie. Was she an associate of theirs? Was she legally compromised herself? I can't get there.

So what good would scaring her now do? I mean, they had to know what she knew for it to even be a question as to _how much _she might have said or not said. So why wouldn't they just operate from the assumption she told them everything she knows and act accordingly? Then, either kill or hurt her (purely for revenge, at this point, or maybe to scare others -- though I find that dubious) or leave her alone and worry about how to counteract it?

They would be better off using their energy to try to bribe/intimate the police or D.A. They're the ones holding the ball.

Madness.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 14, 2020)

Well I want to create more suspense and going after the witness with guns is going to more suspenseful that bribery.  So how do I raise the steaks of danger then, without it possibly being forced?  How can I make it gun threats and a chase, rather than bribery?


----------



## RWK (Mar 14, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Well I want to create more suspense and going after the witness with guns is going to more suspenseful that bribery.  So how do I raise the steaks of danger then, without it possibly being forced?  How can I make it gun threats and a chase, rather than bribery?



Instead of the target being a witness to a crime, have them be in possession of a key element of a complex, and large, money laundering scheme.

OC types fear seizure far more than prison.

It will require more research, but it is a lot more credible.

Is this the same script in which you are pondering the number of villains in another thread?


----------



## ironpony (Mar 15, 2020)

Yes same script.  I reread it and the section where the villains go to make a witness talk and then possibly kill her after, based on her answers, made me second guess, wondering if a it's worth killing a witness after they already gave a statement.


----------



## RWK (Mar 15, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Yes same script.  I reread it and the section where the villains go to make a witness talk and then possibly kill her after, based on her answers, made me second guess, wondering if a it's worth killing a witness after they already gave a statement.



When you committ a murder to try to cover up a previous crime, you just gave the state a second run at you....


----------



## ironpony (Mar 15, 2020)

RWK said:


> When you committ a murder to try to cover up a previous crime, you just gave the state a second run at you....



Yes I understand that, that makes sense.  But it happens in fiction all the time where the villains commit a second crime, to attempt to cover up the first one.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 21, 2020)

Well going over the script again, it seems I have a plot paradox. 

The hero will only watch over the witness, if an attempt is made on her, and the villains will only make an attempt if the hero is watching over her.

Is that true do you think?


----------



## RWK (Mar 21, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Well going over the script again, it seems I have a plot paradox.
> 
> The hero will only watch over the witness, if an attempt is made on her, and the villains will only make an attempt if the hero is watching over her.
> 
> Is that true do you think?



Not at all.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 21, 2020)

Okay, as long as it's believable that they would break into her place with guns to find out what she said, instead of bribing her.  Or as long as the cop decides to protect her before the break in, and doesn't need a break in to motivate him to protect, even though it's not his job, or assignment that he's getting paid for.

Which one would be better of the two?


----------



## RWK (Mar 21, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Okay, as long as it's believable that they would break into her place with guns to find out what she said, instead of bribing her.  Or as long as the cop decides to protect her before the break in, and doesn't need a break in to motivate him to protect, even though it's not his job, or assignment that he's getting paid for.
> 
> Which one would be better of the two?



Neither. Both have been done to death in countless B movies, and neither have any foundation in reality or common sense.

As a first-timer, shouldn't you endeavor to break new ground? They can get this sort of rote plot from any number of known script-churners. You don't hire first-timers for stock scripts, you look for someone with fresh ideas.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 21, 2020)

Yeah I see what you mean.  I feel my premise is not cliched at all, but some of the turns in the plot are cliche.  Is it possible for every turn throughout a plot to be completely original, or is one or more going to have to be done before, cause that is just the logic of it, and not every turn can be original?


----------



## RWK (Mar 21, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Yeah I see what you mean.  I feel my premise is not cliched at all, but some of the turns in the plot are cliche.  Is it possible for every turn throughout a plot to be completely original, or is one or more going to have to be done before, cause that is just the logic of it, and not every turn can be original?



The premise is hackneyed: a witness being threatened with violence. There's a dozen movies based on that weak premise, some major productions.

You want to sell a script, you need something new.

A tsunami of scripts from unpublished writers hits Hollywood every year. Assuming you don't had a inside connection to a studio, your only hope is to have an approach that no one else suggested.

Writers of novels and short stories can stay within convention because our pool of buyers is large and their appetite is steady, but there are a limited number of production teams that will produce a movie in a given year.

Just my two cents.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 21, 2020)

Oh okay thanks.  The premise is about a gang of rapists, that are going around committing their crimes, kidnapping and raping; and the police are trying to figure out who they are and catch them.  They are doing it to get as a form of revenge on society, for society constantly rejecting them all time.

Is that new enough possibly, or no?


----------



## RWK (Mar 21, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  The premise is about a gang of rapists, that are going around committing their crimes, kidnapping and raping; and the police are trying to figure out who they are and catch them.  They are doing it to get as a form of revenge on society, for society constantly rejecting them all time.
> 
> Is that new enough possibly, or no?



Death Wish I-VI. So, no.

Not to mention serial rapists as a general rule are solo creatures.

Your research procedures seem suspect. Have you made any sort of study of criminal behavior? 

If you are going to sell a script in the insanely competitive world of Hollywood, you are going to have to bring something _special _to the table. What is going to make your script leap out to the person scanning twenty scripts that day, after scanning twenty or more every day before, with a massive stack awaiting a quick look? Authenticity? Novel approach? New Idea?

I'm rooting for you, but your plot ideas sound unoriginal, and your research is flimsy. Death Wish, BTW, was a successful novel before it spawned a series of movies (which are being recycled) and a host of B movie spin-offs. In its day, it was ground-breaking.

For example, how would your gang members meet? Why would they care about society rejecting them? Rapists are, by clinical definition, incredibly self-centered, so what is their motivation for cooperation, and why would they care about society? If they are kidnapping, particularly more than once, you are looking at a Federal involvement, or at least a area-based task force, which you clearly (from other posts) do not understand.

You're writing on subjects of which you know very little, and that shows. 

There are two ways to write with authority: know what you are talking about, or write about something that no one knows anything about.

I hope you find your angle.

Good luck.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 21, 2020)

Oh okay, but if I remember correct in Death Wish, only one person is raped though, unless I am remembering incorrect?  But the Death Wish movies also have a very different execution than mine so can I have a story that stands out if the execution is different, or at least different than some like Death Wish?

In my story the rapists meet and form along the way.  The are wanting revenge cause of being rejected sexually all their lives, and being forced into a involuntarily chaste lifestyle.  So they are using rape as a form of revenge on society because of society rejecting them all the time.

As for the law enforcement, I could make it federal, rather than just the police, if that's better?  But wouldn't the police be investigating it as well though?

But as for research and knowing a lot about the subject, the story takes place in shall we say a more 'comic book-ish' type world, where it's not meant to be realistic, so do I have to make it realistic therefore, if it's meant for that type of world?


----------



## RWK (Mar 21, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, but if I remember correct in Death Wish, only one person is raped though, unless I am remembering incorrect?  But the Death Wish movies also have a very different execution than mine so can I have a story that stands out if the execution is different, or at least different than some like Death Wish?



The screening process you are up against is a quick look-over by someone who reads a dozen or more scripts a day, perhaps more, all in the knowledge that they will get piles more hopeful manuscripts every week.

With that in mind, do you think that 'has a higher rape count than Death Wish' is a strong enough selling point to push out dozens of competitors?



ironpony said:


> In my story the rapists meet and form along the way.  The are wanting revenge cause of being rejected sexually all their lives, and being forced into a involuntarily chaste lifestyle.  So they are using rape as a form of revenge on society because of society rejecting them all the time.



You've never heard of hookers? Bar slugs? That isn't how or why rapists work.



ironpony said:


> As for the law enforcement, I could make it federal, rather than just the police, if that's better?  But wouldn't the police be investigating it as well though?



If you have to ask that question, your script won't make the cut. 



ironpony said:


> But as for research and knowing a lot about the subject, the story takes place in shall we say a more 'comic book-ish' type world, where it's not meant to be realistic, so do I have to make it realistic therefore, if it's meant for that type of world?



Name five movies whose script was written by a first-time author that take that approach.

Not to mention that you are going to have a script in which rape is a main feature; rape is one of the few taboos that Hollywood has left, and has to be treated very carefully. Just saying 'my background doesn't require research, knowledge, or facts' will not cut it when approaching a script with depicted rapes. 

Unpublished writers have a 0.3% chance of selling a script in any given year. To sell, you have to have a script that someone will glance over, become intrigued, read it fully, and then decide to pitch it as a project worth betting at least six figures upon, in the hopes of showing a profit.

And that's writers who are hitting mainstream genres. It is less for those operating outside mainstream, such as yourself.

So let's sum up: you're an unpublished writer aiming for a niche genre who doesn't feel any need to understand his subject matter and has a script that involves trigger issues which could draw negative press.

How are your odds feeling right now?

My point is: write a script in which you understand the subject matter, has broad-based appeal, and has innovation. Then you'll only have a 99.7% chance of failure. 

Maybe 99.6%.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 21, 2020)

Oh yeah, I just figured I still have to try the best.

As to why the gang of villains does not use hookers, well then it wouldn't be revenge then, where as they are out for revenge.  Paying a hooker is not getting revenge on society.

As for dealing with a sensitive subject matter, as someone new I felt like I had to write a story that was risky, because I thought that if I write about a safe idea, it would be forgotten about a lot more likely cause safe ideas, do not get under the skin as much.  I thought as a newcomer, best write a story, risky, with the intention of getting under the skin, or that was what I thought would best.

As for using the police instead of a special task force, other movies have used regular police to deal with felony crimes, so I think I'd be okay there.

But to compare to Death Wish, I really don't see hardly similarity between mine and Death Wish.  Death Wish had a gang rape in it, but that is just a 1 percent similarity it feels like.  Does a new script have to be 100 percent different with no similar plot elements to other movies at all?

I was talking to a professor I had in a class on writing, and he said that a lot of writers stay too safe and do not do anything risky, that would stand out from the crowd.  I pitched the script to him, to see what he thought, and he thought it was way too controversial as well.  But I don't understand cause he said that writers are too safe and not risky enough, so I write something risky, and he says it's too much.  Is he not practicing what he preaches?


----------



## RWK (Mar 21, 2020)

ironpony said:


> As to why the gang of villains does not use hookers, well then it wouldn't be revenge then, where as they are out for revenge.  Paying a hooker is not getting revenge on society.



Except that that is not how rapists operate. If you are going to hit on a sensitive subject, know something about it, because other people do, too.



ironpony said:


> As for dealing with a sensitive subject matter, as someone new I felt like I had to write a story that was risky, because I thought that if I write about a safe idea, it would be forgotten about a lot more likely cause safe ideas, do not get under the skin as much.  I thought as a newcomer, best write a story, risky, with the intention of getting under the skin, or that was what I thought would best.



A valid point and approach. However, you should know something about your keystone point, which you do not.



ironpony said:


> As for using the police instead of a special task force, other movies have used regular police to deal with felony crimes, so I think I'd be okay there.



Sure. 'Good enough'  is the standard to shoot for when the odds are 99.7% against you. Wait until you're really facing a long shot before putting in the work.



ironpony said:


> But to compare to Death Wish, I really don't see hardly similarity between mine and Death Wish.  Death Wish had a gang rape in it, but that is just a 1 percent similarity it feels like.  Does a new script have to be 100 percent different with no similar plot elements to other movies at all?



No, but it should feel new. Will a script by a writer who knows very little about the keystone aspect (gang of rapists) and nothing about the moving factor (law enforcement response) sound like a sure thing to someone who looks over thousands of script per year? 



ironpony said:


> I was talking to a professor I had in a class on writing, and he said that a lot of writers stay too safe and do not do anything risky, that would stand out from the crowd.  I pitched the script to him, to see what he thought, and he thought it was way too controversial as well.  But I don't understand cause he said that writers are too safe and not risky enough, so I write something risky, and he says it's too much.  Is he not practicing what he preaches?



No, he knows the difference between risk and value.

Your script lacks depth of knowledge and understanding, which is the foundation of any successful work. The value of it.

Your professor was right. You are wrong. It is as simple as that.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Oh okay thanks.  What can I do improve the value of the story then in the script?

I also know that gang of rapists do not operate like that most often in real life cases, but I wanted a villain that was more dangerous than usual to add to the suspense and drama.  But you see movies that have done this before, where killers will form gang and wreak anarchy and havoc in movies.  So is there something wrong with me taking a similar approach?

I mean you are telling me what is wrong with it, and that's great.  Thanks.  But what can I do to improve it, and fix any problems though?  What do other movies do differently that deal with similar subject matter, that they get sold?

When you say that the villains do not behave how realistic criminals do well realistic criminals would make for a more boring story I think, when I read real crime stories.  I thought I had to take artistic license, to make them more interesting.


----------



## RWK (Mar 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  What can I do improve the value of the story then in the script?



Come up with a better core concept. Yours has been done to death. There is literally nothing compelling about the concept. In short, start over with a better concept and more research.



ironpony said:


> I also know that gang of rapists do not operate like that most often in real life cases, but I wanted a villain that was more dangerous than usual to add to the suspense and drama.  But you see movies that have done this before, where killers will form gang and wreak anarchy and havoc in movies.  So is there something wrong with me taking a similar approach?



Yes: because you are an unpublished writer trying to beat 99.7% odds. For that, you need a innovative concept, not something that has been done to death.



ironpony said:


> I mean you are telling me what is wrong with it, and that's great.  Thanks.  But what can I do to improve it, and fix any problems though?  What do other movies do differently that deal with similar subject matter, that they get sold?



First: when I have an innovative concept, I use it for my own work.
Second: quit thinking about other movies. Those writers made the grade; you can't copy them and expect to beat the odds. You need something new.
Third: How to improve it? Start over, with a new and innovative core concept. Do your research first, in depth. Then write it all into a script that is better than 99.7% of those submitted in the same year. And pray a lot.



ironpony said:


> When you say that the villains do not behave how realistic criminals do well realistic criminals would make for a more boring story I think, when I read real crime stories.  I thought I had to take artistic license, to make them more interesting.



There's a difference between artistic license and and not knowing what you are talking about.  You can only take artistic license with a topic in which you are educated.

Look at Silence of the Lambs (a successful novel before a movie): low body count. Only a few scenes with violence. Yet the suspense ran deep. Why? Because the writer knew what he was writing about, and wrote very well. That's a solid formula. 

So: You need something far better than the concept you have. Develop a new idea, do the work, research hard, write exceedingly well.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Oh okay, when you say look at Silence of the Lambs, that has a low body count and only a few scenes of violence, are you saying that my script has a high body count with a lot of violence?

But the Silence of the Lambs is about the hunt for a serial killer which has been done to death before too, so is that kind of movie something to learn from if it also has a premise that's been done a lot?


----------



## RWK (Mar 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, when you say look at Silence of the Lambs, that has a low body count and only a few scenes of violence, are you saying that my script has a high body count with a lot of violence?
> 
> But the Silence of the Lambs is about the hunt for a serial killer which has been done to death before too, so is that kind of movie something to learn from if it also has a premise that's been done a lot?



You missed my point entirely.

SoL created intense suspense without violence or body count by the quality of the script and the innovation of the villains. It remains one of the few movies to touch on the reality of a true sociopath. 

I'm saying your script is junk. Start anew with an innovative premise, and put in the work.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Oh okay, but why can't my script create suspense with quality and innovative villains though? Why can't a group of rapists have quality and innovation, compared to serial killers?


----------



## RWK (Mar 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, but why can't my script create suspense with quality and innovative villains though? Why can't a group of rapists have quality and innovation, compared to serial killers?



Because you don't know what you're talking about, and your premise lacks innovation.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Oh okay, what could I do to give the premise more innovation then?


----------



## RWK (Mar 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, what could I do to give the premise more innovation then?



Create a new one, as I have said before. Start over, completely fresh.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Okay thanks, but I asked a few readers and they said that I should still go with this premise, cause I asked them if the premise was flawed and they said no, premises are never flawed it's all about how you execute them. So if that's true, what can I do to give it more innovation then?


----------



## RWK (Mar 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, but I asked a few readers and they said that I should still go with this premise, cause I asked them if the premise was flawed and they said no, premises are never flawed it's all about how you execute them. So if that's true, what can I do to give it more innovation then?



Nothing.

Your readers are clearly not giving you viable feedback because your material is poorly considered, your concept is trite, and you lack any foundation of knowledge.

Maybe you'll do better with a news project.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Oh okay, but what can I do to make this kind of subject matter work then?   Why a news project?

But it seems that you do not think it's good because of lack of realism is that right?  Cause if that's the case, there are several movies that throw realism out the window, and I was told before in a writing class that the number one rule, don't left facts interfere with a good story.  Is there any truth in that, especially if it's the lack of realism that might be the problem do you think?

If it is, since when to readers care about realism, especially since all these other stories throw realism out the window?


----------



## RWK (Mar 22, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, but what can I do to make this kind of subject matter work then?   Why a news project?



Because your current project is junk.

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over?


----------



## ironpony (Mar 22, 2020)

Oh I just wanted to improve the current one, before moving onto another.  Is it that fact that it's not totally realistic that makes it junk?  Like for example, what's a movie that deals with this type of premise that is not junk and does it really well, just so I can tell what I am doing wrong?


----------

