Go Back   LegalMatch Free Legal Advice Forums > Law Forums > Criminal Law
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Find a Lawyer Now By Category:
Family & Divorce Criminal Defense Job & Employment Personal Injury LegalMatch on Facebook
  Real Estate Lawyers Immigration Business Lawyers Other Lawyers LegalMatch on Twitter
LegalMatch is Fast, Free and Confidential
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 02:22 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6
Angry I need legal advice

I was wrongfully arrested on two counts of assault and one of public intoxication . On January 7th 2009 I was found not guilty of all charges by a jury of my peers.

I am currently looking for help in achieving justice for the failure of the City of South Salt Lake Police Department and the District Attorneys office to adequately investigate the facts in my case before filing charges against me. No attorneys will help because “you can’t win against the government”. So I am asking the government for help.

Had the afore mentioned offices done their duty and thoroughly investigated both sides of the situation they would have come to a different conclusion and realized, as the jury did, that I had acted in self defense.

Prior to my trial one charge of assault was dropped. This was the charge related to the vagrant who was trespassing in my home. When I arrived home he was beating up his girlfriend in my guest room. I told him to leave and he aggressively threatened me with bodily harm forcing me to retrieve my gun. I don’t know exactly why they dropped the charge but I suspect that their witness refused to appear. Since I have known this witness since birth I can state three reasons he would do this.

He had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in the state of Washington for violation of probation involving a conviction for auto theft and was afraid he might be arrested if he appeared in court.

He knew that he had lied in his statement to the police at the time of my arrest when he stated that “he was my roommate and had been living at my home for three years“. The fact is he was my friends son and had only been a guest in my house for five months before I evicted he and his father in September of 2007 after I was violently beaten.

He was fully aware he was not allowed in my home and was trespassing.


The second charge of assault involved the girlfriend. Had the police or district attorneys office done an investigation they might have realized that this witnesses statement was full of fabrications and outright lies.

If they had attempted to collect evidence from the hand gun they would have known that she had actually tried to murder me. The wound on my hand and the firing pin on the gun are a perfect match. The wound on my hand was a result of me putting my thumb between the hammer and the firing pin when she chambered a round, aimed the gun at me and pulled the trigger.

During my trial the jury determined that the district attorneys office did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Though I cannot speak for the jury I was also present in the courtroom and heard all of the testimony presented. This testimony proved several points.

That I was waiting for the “victims” father to arrive and remove him and only became involved because I heard the female being violently assaulted.

There was no attempt by the police to collect evidence that would suggest I acted in defense of the female and self defense.

The voluntary statements I made while being transported to jail such as “he is not allowed in my house.” and “I was trying to protect her” were disregarded by police.

The witness against me perjured herself on the stand when she swore she was unaware her boyfriend was not allowed in my house and that their was nothing physical going on when I entered the room.

The South Salt Lake police departments investigation of my side of the situation consisted of two questions directed to me.

“Did you point the gun at him?”

“Is that your motorcycle?”

That was it. I was asked no more questions, ever, until trial. They based their entire case against me on the word of a homeless trespasser and the word of a battered woman.

Had the South Salt Lake police department done an investigation into previous history they would have found out that they had responded to an altercation in September 2007 in which I was violently beaten by the “victim” and his father in which I sustained three broken ribs, a broken nose and a concussion. They might have realized that my home had no involvement with the police until the “victim” arrived in Utah.

The South Salt Lake police department, if they had done an investigation, would have also discovered that after this person was evicted from my house in September of 2007 South Salt Lake City detectives had come to my home on at least three occasions looking for him in relation to possible involvement in thefts around the city and on all three occasions I told them that this person did not live there and was not allowed on the property. Had the police checked their own 911 records they would have found out that, after his eviction, I had called 911 on two occasions because this person was outside my house threatening me.


The neglect of duty by the South Salt Lake police and the District Attorneys office to properly investigate the facts in this case affected me in many negative ways.

I was wrongfully forced to spend eight days and nights in jail.

I was terminated from my job of 10 years and to this day have been unable to find a job.

My reputation in my field of work as a Fire and Security technician was irreparably damaged.

I was forced to terminate my retirement account and use the money to continue paying my bills, costing me $3,000.00 in tax penalties and the loss of my retirement savings.

I lost my medical and dental insurance.

I suffered nine months of extreme stress making me very ill waiting to go to trial.

Adding insult to injury this unemployed, vagrant trespasser lied to a judge and filed a protection order against me using my address as his. He then moved into my home of six years and took possession of everything I owned. I was not allowed access to my home, my transportation, my dogs or my property.

I was rendered homeless for five weeks after posting bail and being released from jail. I had to rent a motel room during this time at a cost of fifty dollars per day and when I finally got my home back after the protection order hearing I had to pay the rent and bills for all the time these vagrants were occupying my home.

The fact is that I was the victim and it would have been obvious if the police had done even a minimal investigation.

I am posting this letter in hopes I reach someone who will do the right thing. If this is you please contact me.

Last edited by ROGREGORY1; 06-04-2009 at 06:07 AM. Reason: REMOVE MY NAME
ROGREGORY1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 05-26-2009, 07:11 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,901
I have to admit, I was not able to read your entire posting---it is way too detailed and personal for a public forum--something that entailed needs a lawyer----at the least, it is advisable to take out the uses of your name and personally identifying information.

The crux of your situation appears to stem from a misconception that being found not guilty is synonymous with "I should never have been arrested". The two are not exclusive.

Also, this statement is where I stopped reading: [COLOR=red]They based their entire case against me on the word of a homeless trespasser and the word of a battered woman.[/COLOR]


The word of and rights belonging to a homeless trespasser and a battered woman are the same as the rights that you have.

The police do not determine innocence or guilty--they determine probable cause---is it reasonable to suspect a crime has been committed? Just because you were found not guilty does not mean that a probable cause was not present in sufficient quantity to effect an arrest. You apparently expect them to not only investigate but determine why you were holding a gun on another person---it is not their determination as to if you were justified or not---that is the job of a jury.

Hopefully you will be able to put this behind you and go on with your life. You are always free to hire a lawyer to bring suit against the "vagrant" in civil court.

Good luck.
__________________
[COLOR=magenta][COLOR=blue]G[/COLOR][COLOR=darkorchid]r[/COLOR][COLOR=darkslategray]a[/COLOR][COLOR=orange]c[/COLOR][COLOR=seagreen]e[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]To [COLOR=blue]ERR [/COLOR]is human.[/COLOR]
To [COLOR=darkorchid]FORGIVE [/COLOR]is divine.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=red]NEITHER[/COLOR] is my policy.[/FONT] [/FONT]
GentleGrace is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 06:18 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6
Thanls

Hi Grace, thanks for the words of wisdom. I have a question. Shouldn't I have had the oportunity to make a statement before being charged? Shouldn't the district attorney be obligated to investigate? This person had only been a guest for 5 months when he and his father beat me up and, since the police said I couldn't just kick them out I evicted them even though neither were on the lease. over 7 months later I find this person in my house beating his girlfriend then threatening me. Don't I have the right to defend my home and person from a trespesser?
ROGREGORY1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 06:47 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,901
The police and the district attorney do not determine innocence or guilt. They determine probable cause--a judge and/or jury determine guilt or innocence. Deciding whether or not you were guilty is NOT the function of the police or the DA.

Also, a guest for five months is not a guest--it is a tenant whether or not they are on the lease and you would have to go through legal eviction to have them removed.

You have a right to defend yourself in your home, but wasn't that charge dropped?
__________________
[COLOR=magenta][COLOR=blue]G[/COLOR][COLOR=darkorchid]r[/COLOR][COLOR=darkslategray]a[/COLOR][COLOR=orange]c[/COLOR][COLOR=seagreen]e[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]To [COLOR=blue]ERR [/COLOR]is human.[/COLOR]
To [COLOR=darkorchid]FORGIVE [/COLOR]is divine.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=red]NEITHER[/COLOR] is my policy.[/FONT] [/FONT]
GentleGrace is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 06:54 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6
Hi again, the charge was dropped but only because this person had fled the state and refused to appear in court because he might be arrested on felony warrants from Washington State.

I had legally evicted both he and his father 7 months before after they broke 3 of my ribs and my nose.
ROGREGORY1 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 08:12 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
And now you know that if you had changed the locks on your place, he would not have been able to get in without "breaking and entering" whereupon you should have called the police... not retrieved your gun. I suspect that anyone who goes for his gun first will be treated as the offender... but by not securing your residence in the first place, you gave this perp the means to displace you from your own home.

It is not up to the police to do anything more than determine the facts and the fact that you were holding the gun certainly makes YOU the visible perp. You should get a better quality of friends.
boykinmama is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 09:21 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,901
The police do NOT "determine facts". To say they "determine facts" mean they make judgments. They do not.
Use of the word "determine" implies an incorrect assertion that the police are making a judgment about the merits of the case. That is not their function.

The dictionary defines "determine" as follows:

a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively.
b. To end or decide, as by judicial action.

2. To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation. See Synonyms at [COLOR=#1d4994]discover[/COLOR].
3. To cause (someone) to come to a conclusion or resolution.

The police do NOT conclude or resolve disputes---they establish probable cause and remand the participants to a court. They do not end or decide by judicial action. They do not SETTLE disputes conclusively. Telling the poster that the police "determine" facts suggest that he can hold them responsible for not determining the "fact" that he insists he is innocent. He cannot since that, in a nutshell, is not their job.
They establish probable cause a crime was committed. It is NOT a conclusive fact that a crime was committed. Determining the facts of guilt or innocence is the job of a jury and /or judge. DETERMINE means make judgments. They OBSERVE and RECORD facts that are obvious (i.e. a man was holding a gun, a woman was screaming, for example). They do not make a determination as to IF the reason WHY he was holding a gun was justifiable or not.

Determine--conclude, 'bring to an end by judicial means' facts? Not a chance.

Observe and record incidents? Sure. DETERMINE facts? No way.

I hardly think berating the poster for his caliber of friends, or for not changing the locks on his house is arrogant and unnecessarily offensive. To the original poster, my apology for these unfortunate comments.
__________________
[COLOR=magenta][COLOR=blue]G[/COLOR][COLOR=darkorchid]r[/COLOR][COLOR=darkslategray]a[/COLOR][COLOR=orange]c[/COLOR][COLOR=seagreen]e[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]To [COLOR=blue]ERR [/COLOR]is human.[/COLOR]
To [COLOR=darkorchid]FORGIVE [/COLOR]is divine.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=red]NEITHER[/COLOR] is my policy.[/FONT] [/FONT]
GentleGrace is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 09:31 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Just the facts, maam.

There is only one sophist...read captious and fallacious reasoner, at once seemingly learned, but intending to deceive... posting junk to this thread.

To report the facts they ascertain, a police person will indeed make judgements of whom to believe, what to believe, and what needs to be done about it. Most police will automatically arrest and jail someone brandishing a gun, even in their own home. Granted, poster was trying to protect himself from people who had previously done him harm, but the simpler method is to CALL THE POLICE.

So how else does anyone posting to this thread choose to adequately describe what the police DO out there in bringing in a perp?

Can you describe it any better? Come on now... give it up. Our daily lesson in legal speak! Actually, it is more like our daily lesson in obfuscation.


captious

SYLLABICATION: cap·tious
PRONUNCIATION: kpshs
ADJECTIVE: 1. Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults: a captious scholar. 2. Intended to entrap or confuse, as in an argument: a captious question.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English capcious, from Old French captieux, from Latin captisus, from capti, seizure, sophism, from captus, past participle of capere, to seize. See kap- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: captious·ly —ADVERB
captious·ness —NOUN

To seize the thread from another through innocuous and specious complaint.

Last edited by boykinmama; 06-04-2009 at 09:46 AM.
boykinmama is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 11:32 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,901
Ah, the name calling and personal adjective usage again. Figured you had enough of that being banned on your other name. I defined a term you incorrectly used in an attempt at educating. YOU "defined" words you chose with the intent to demean and belittle. You never do learn, do you?

If you had a workable knowledge of the law, you would understand that what you are saying in part of your posting you are contradicting by another part.

The poster feels as though he was not treated fairly because the police did NOT make a determination about his innocence or guilt. You are telling him the police DID make a determination of fact. They did not. He says they did not. In fact, he asserts if they HAD, he never would have been arrested or prosecuted. You are telling him they DID. They did not, and it is not their job to do so.

They establish PROBABLE CAUSE--they determine (conclude) nothing.

The police do not "decide who to believe". They REPORT statements such as (for example) "the complaintant stated" or the "victim stated" or "subject was holding a gun upon our arrival". They do not determine who is innocent and who is guilty. They do not say, "The subject was holding a gun because the illegal tenant was hitting a woman in the bedroom". That calls for a finding--a determination. They may say, "Subject STATED the reason he was holding the gun was because such and such". But they do NOT make definitive statements that portray guilt or innocence--and this is a PERFECT example of how precison matters.

The entire misconception the poster has is based upon his expectations of the role the police and the DA play. He is stating they did NOT make a determination (determine facts) that decided him not guilty. He feels if they HAD investigated and made a determination (i.e. judgment, finding) they would not have prosecuted him because they would have determined he was, in fact, not guilty. The critical point he is missing and you are clouding for some bizarre reason is that this is NOT the role of the police.

The only LEGAL recourse he has against the DA or police is if he was detained, arrested, and prosecuted without PROBABLE cause.

Telling him the police determine (arrive at a conclusion) and then the next sentence tell him they do not is contradictory and displays a laymans inabililty to understand these roles in their most rudimentary form and is little more than (another) perpetuation of misinformation.
As always, I invite you to not simply take my word for it. N. W. Whitley, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Seibel, Individually and As a Police Officer of Thechicago Police Department, Defendant-appellant

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 613 F.2d 682

Argued Dec. 5, 1979.Decided Jan. 25, 1980.As Amended Feb. 1, 1980


N. W. Whitley, Plaintiff-appellee, v. George Seibel, Individually and As a Police Officer of Thechicago Police Department, Defendant-appellant - 613 F.2d 682 - Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions
"The Constitution, it was stated, does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested nor that every conceivable step be taken at whatever cost to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. Id. at 2696. It was explained that the fourteenth amendment does not protect against all deprivations of liberty, but only those accomplished without due process of law......The sheriff executing the arrest warrant, it was held, was [COLOR=red]not required to investigate every claim of innocence because the ultimate determination of guilt lies with judge and jury.[/COLOR] "

To the original poster, perhaps reading this case as an example can allow you to see some parallels between your case and this case in which the subject felt as though the case against him should have been investigated more thoroughly. Read the findings of the court and while you do not like the way your unfortunate situation played out, rest assured that as you have related it here, there was not neglect of due diligence nor were there any "determination of facts" for the reasons given above ........." .......[COLOR=red]because the ultimate determination of guilt lies with judge and jury." [COLOR=black]and not the investigating officers or district attorney.[/COLOR] [/COLOR]
__________________
[COLOR=magenta][COLOR=blue]G[/COLOR][COLOR=darkorchid]r[/COLOR][COLOR=darkslategray]a[/COLOR][COLOR=orange]c[/COLOR][COLOR=seagreen]e[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]To [COLOR=blue]ERR [/COLOR]is human.[/COLOR]
To [COLOR=darkorchid]FORGIVE [/COLOR]is divine.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=red]NEITHER[/COLOR] is my policy.[/FONT] [/FONT]

Last edited by GentleGrace; 06-04-2009 at 11:34 AM.
GentleGrace is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Old 06-04-2009, 12:08 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 662
Actually, I was pointing out that the police determined that he was holding a gun on the other two and took him to jail as he was threatening their lives. They were not initially doing anything TO him... even though they were on his rented property.

So what the police did was SEE him with a gun... arrest him on a weapons charge and take him to jail.

What he did during the hearing when he was arraigned is a total mystery. If he had reason to have a gun and to threaten them with it, that should have been said at the hearing. So SOMEBODY made a determination that he was a threat based on lies from the two trespassers... and put HIM under a peace bond of sorts.

So how did YOU think he wound up in jail and being prosecuted. Simple... the police determined that he was threatening people with DEADLY FORCE for trespassing. THAT is why he was charged, arraigned and brought to trial.

The evidence was clear that he had reason to feel jeopardized by their presence, but that fear was NOT reason enough to use DEADLY FORCE... thus he was detained. The courts, however, have not worked on a timely basis for many years... and he had to spend far too much time under a cloud of guilt proffered by these two liars. Yes, the police could have done a better job, but if he had been a better citizen, he never would have pulled out a gun, received an injury from the bimbo trying to shoot him, nor would have have been arrested for threatening someone with deadly force... hence the assault charge. Sure he had extenuating circumstances. But not enough reasonable cause to pull a gun. He should have called the police and removed himself from the premises until they got there. He is not Superman.

THEY CAN BE CHARGED FOR LYING TO POLICE and for causing both his arrest and the later detainment... based on lies. Somehow I doubt that will ever happen. But suing them himself would only cost him more money. He should put them on an order of protection to prevent them from coming near him or his home again. And he should find a better class of friends.

Justice DELAYED is JUSTICE DENIED.
boykinmama is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Copyright ©1999-2008 LegalMatch. All rights reserved. LegalMatch®, the LegalMatch
logo, and the tradedress are trademarks of LegalMatch. Patents Pending.