Bad District Attorney

Are district attorneys required to investigate both sides of a crime?

I was arrested for defending myself from a trespesser with my gun. No bullets were fired. The trespesser lied to police and said he lived in my home.

I was not asked anything but during my arrest told police he was tresspessing, beating his girlfriend, who was there also, and that he had assaulted me.

After my arrest this same person, at the advice of police, filed a protection order forbiding me from being in my home. He and his girlfriend then moved into my home.

My landlord tried to evict this person but was told he could not until after the protection order hearing 9 weeks later. In the hearing My landlord and I presented the facts that this person did not live there, was not on the lease and in fact been evicted from the property (2 duplexes) 7 months before and , per the landlord and myself, was not allowed on the property.

Again I ask why wasn't my side of the story investigated before charges were filed against me when this person was tresspessing in my home and threatened me?

This is a rhetorical question. NO one here can tell you why or how they acted as they did aside to say that they established probable cause and allowed a judge/jury to determine what wrongdoing, if any, took place. That is how the system works.

While it is clear to you that you are innocent, that isn't a determination they can make---to do so would be to completely BYPASS our entire system of justice. They do not determine innocence or guilt--only decide if there is probable cause. And there was.

A JURY determines the outcome after being presented with both sides of the proverbial coin. That's how "it" works.

Your recourse should be against the guy who took up in your house. Sue him.

I would if he had anything, As my first letter said he is a homeless unemployed delinguent young adult with nothing in his possession that is not stolen. The same police department suspected him for involvement in thefts around the area and had come looking for him on 3 occasions after his eviction and were told he did not live here and was not allowed on the property.

P.S. I guess I was under the false impression that some due diligence would be required.

In your opinion how was due diligence NOT provided? You are assigning to the police and the DA a duty that is not theirs. It is not their job to decide who was guilty and who was not. It is their job to establish probable cause---and apparently they did. The determination you seek comes from a judge and/or jury, not the police.
And he doesn't have to have anything to sue him. You can get a judgement against him and you should be able to have him criminally charged for giving false information, etc.