# Question about how the 'O.J. law' works in this case.



## ironpony (Aug 27, 2016)

For my story, basically the police and court want to prosecute a suspect who charged with kidnapping and assault related charges.  There are two cops who found the kidnapper and the hostage, by sort of stumbling upon the kidnapping accidentally, in their job, and they are witnesses in the case.

The kidnap victim does not want to testify and wants to stay out of it.  Because of this, I thought that the two cops's word would not be enough, to take the case to trial.  Basically the defense would argue that the police have no proof that a kidnapping happened, if they do not have the testimony of the victim.  Otherwise there is no proof that the woman was even a victim of a kidnapping, if she is not going to say so.

However, in my research, there is a law after the O.J. Simpson case, called the O.J. law.  Before the Simpson case, if a victim of a crime was not willing to testify, then the charges were dropped cause the victim would not cooperate.  But because of this new law, the police are to now go ahead and press charges anyway, without the victim's cooperation.

However, how is the prosecution suppose to prove a case to go to trial, without the word of the victim, not even a statement on record that was given beforehand?  Is the jury suppose to take the cops' word that a victim of a crime exists, and that is enough to go to trial, under the new law?


----------



## LeeC (Aug 27, 2016)

Once I tried to help a pet rock learn to swim, but it kept sinking to the bottom so I gave up. Do you know where I went wrong?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 27, 2016)

LeeC said:


> Once I tried to help a pet rock learn to swim, but it kept sinking to the bottom so I gave up. Do you know where I went wrong?



Just as well, if you had continued and the rock drowned you would still have murdered it even if, lost on the bottom of  the river among a million similar rocks, it was unable to testify against you. What you did to that rock was 'Beyond reasonable doubt', which is the criteria for guilt, even if the rock asked you to  do it. You should be more careful, and making pets of the very heart of the planet is demeaning.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 29, 2016)

You're asking a question that requires a law degree to answer effectively. You're basically asking how a trial lawyer/prosecutor would do their job. I'd be happy to give my ideas, but I promise they're far from educated. You need to ask a real professional for a moment of their time and get these answers.

That said, I doubt ANY district attorney would prosecute a case like that without some physical evidence to support the police claims. If they had none, detectives would be assigned to the case for longer-term investigation long before they bring up charges. This is one of the many reasons why some high profile murders or other criminal cases can sometimes take YEARS To resolve.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Aug 30, 2016)

If the prosecutor has enough evidence of the crime they can go ahead without the victim. It happens in domestic violence cases where the victim may sign a waiver but the state has found sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. whether it be multiple police reports or picture of the victims bruises, if they think they can make the case they will for the good of the victim. in the case of domestic violence, they may act to prevent further harm done to the victim even if the person themselves do not realize that they are being victimized. 

But this is from what I  know, you should talk to a state prosecutor about this.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2016)

Okay thanks.  Well I was told the same thing by a defense attorney in my research, but not a prosecutor.  That was just one opinion though.'

In my story though, a cop witnesses a sexual assault and stops it.  Attempted as in the perp wore gloves and didn't have much time to get any DNA on the victim before being caught.  However, the victim doesn't report it, or give any statement.  The victim just stays silent about it, and says she doesn't want to to get involved.

The cop calls for back up of course.  The back up officers can confirm that a woman was found according to the cop, and that the man who was arrested was a suspect according to the cop.  But the only one who saw the actual assault, was the cop, and his words are the only evidence. There may be some physical evidence like some bruises on the woman, but the woman is not willing to submit herself for that kind of testing.  Would this be enough to go to trial without a victim?

I wanted to write it so that the victim is subpoenaed, and forced to testify, but would the prosecutor go through it, or just proceed without a victim?


----------



## LeeC (Aug 31, 2016)

The jury in their seats asleep,
the trial judge exclaimed,
"An exemplar technique of circularity
weakening in its repetition
when all have pontificated."


----------



## ironpony (Sep 15, 2016)

TheWonderingNovice said:


> If the prosecutor has enough evidence of the crime they can go ahead without the victim. It happens in domestic violence cases where the victim may sign a waiver but the state has found sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial. whether it be multiple police reports or picture of the victims bruises, if they think they can make the case they will for the good of the victim. in the case of domestic violence, they may act to prevent further harm done to the victim even if the person themselves do not realize that they are being victimized.
> 
> But this is from what I  know, you should talk to a state prosecutor about this.



Okay thanks, this helps.  When you say that the person does not realize they are being victimized, couldn't the defense attorney use this to his advantage though?  Would the defense attorney be able to subpoena the victim to testify, and she will say she was not victimized, which could be a problem for the prosecution, if that's the case?


----------

