In my screenplay, I am brainstorming ideas to tie everything together. I was researching about how in court if a witness does not want to testify he/she can "plead the fifth" as they say. In my script a witness is subpoenaed to testify but the day before her trial date, when she is scheduled to appear, she goes out and commits a violent felony. The cops find out about it, and on tell the court. On the stand, the lawyers question her on why she committed the felony because they believe that it's related to the case. She decides to plead the fifth, and does not want to incriminate herself. However, is a witness allowed to plead the fifth, if it's pertaining to cross examination questions that are not related to the original case? The original case is her being a witness to a kidnapping. She can legally plead the fifth to questions pertaining to that if she wishes. But if a witness goes out and commits a different crime before her court date, can she plead the fifth to that to, since it's not related to the original case at hand?
But if it's not related to the case at hand, why are they asking her questions about it? However, my limited, mostly television-fiction-based, understanding is that you can't be required to incriminate yourself, period. A further television-fed nuance is that I think that if you're not at risk--for example, if you've been granted immunity for whatever you're incriminating yourself about--you can't plead the fifth. But that sounds so tidy and cute that I can't help wondering if a scriptwriter made it up.
I want to get better at writing plot when it comes to thrillers. I think I am better at character development and motivation, but getting twists and turns to hold together in a web is a challenge for me. For my screenplay, let me know what you think of these plot points. The first is a cop, COP A who is guarding a witness, who is under protection, because she in danger of being assassinated before a trial, that she is going to testify on. Some gang members come to take her out, and a gunfight ensues. The witness is part of the gang, but she is being forced legally to cut a deal and testify. Another cop, COP B is undercover and has infiltrated the gang. He doesn't realize that he and the gang are going to where the witness is staying to assassinate her but he figures it out just as they arrive. As the gunfight ensues one of the gang members drops his gun. The witness grabs it, and while COP A is preoccupied in defending her, she shoots COP B to death, thinking she was one of the gang members who has come to kill her. Now I want to write this so that COP A will call it in of course, but still wants to take her to the trial tomorrow, and act like everything is still a go. That way, they can still get her testimony, and afterwords, they can then grill her about killing the undercover cop, perhaps even on the stand, after. Or does this not add up at all, and they would take her in for questioning, and delay the trial? For the story to go my way, I need the trial to still go on as planned the next day, timeline wise. Another plot point is, is that later COP A wants to get revenge for COP B's death. I have a plan for him to execute, but need him to ask his captain to go along with it. Is it far fetched though, that if a cop is going to get revenge, and kill some gang members, that he would risk getting caught by asking his captain to join him? What do you think? Will these two plot points make lodgical sense, or do they create holes? Thanks for the input!
"Story premise" doesn't translate to "premises" as you are using the term. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant.
Oh yes, that's true, I misunderstood. Do they hold together though, in when it comes to logics and legalities? Would readers buy it? It's really tricky cause the characters have to make dumb decisions cause they are flawed, and that's what keeps the conflict going, but you don't want them to be too stupid.
I have no legal expertise. My non-expert reaction: - Why wouldn't the witness's shooting of Cop B be self defense? She didn't know Cop B was a cop rather than someone trying to kill her, right? - Either way, I can't see why they would grill her, at a trial about one crime, about another subsequent crime. - A cop asking a higher-ranked cop to help him commit deliberate murder suggests a deeply corrupt police force.
Oh okay thanks. I'm not saying it wouldn't be self defense. It's just that some of the other cop characters still blame her and want justice because she is part of the gang, and is part of what they stand for, so they still blame her, even so. But legally it will be deemed self defense. They only grill her, cause she is 'one of them', as they don't like members of that gang killing cops. Yes, that's what I mean. The force is a normal police force, and not generally corrupt, so the cop would have to ask his superior in extremely good faith, if the audience buys that.
I can't see it being realistic for a law enforcement officer to ask another law enforcement officer to break the law to an extent that could send them both to life in prison.
I can understand cop a wanting revenge for the death of cop b but there's no way he would ask his boss for help, his boss didn't get to be in the boss' chair by being corrupt (one would hope) but I could understand the boss taking cop a to one side and either talking him down and making him take the legal route, offering his help that way or even going as far as to say something like "I know what you want to do but if you do it, I can't protect you, you do it on your own time and you do it alone ..."
1/ If Cop B is undercover, who knows? It would make his position within the gang very insecure if other cops (e.g. Cop A) know - there will be at least one bent cop in the force! That makes it unlikely Cop A will care enough to plan revenge...especially as it's just a one-man vendetta against a whole gang. It's not as if he's going for gang boss Z who ordered the hit. And if Cop A is enough to take that much vengeance upon the gang, why hasn't the force just let him loose to clean up Dodge City entirely on his own? 2/ As soon as the prosecution (it will be prosecution lawyers doing the trial, the police will only be called as witnesses; they will have no say in how the case is prosecuted) started grilling the Witness about the shooting of Cop B, they would be stopped because it would not be relevant to the case being tried. Besides, they'd have more chance of breaking her in the seclusion of their interview rooms than in the civilized and very public courtroom. 3/ If they're planning to grill her after the trial, it sounds as if they're planning to renege on the deal they've done with her for her testimony. 4/ I don't see a problem with the trial going ahead tomorrow. The gang's attempted hit would have added urgency to the force's desire to get the case dealt with.
Okay thanks. I want Cop A to have help though, cause the revenge scheme I have particularly will require more than one cop. Is there a more plausible way he could acquire help, if asking is not a good idea? What do you mean Shadowfax, when you say there will be at least one bent cop on the force? Are you talking about Cop A? I do want to make it a vendetta though. The vendetta is not successful entirely, but I the reason for Cop B, dying is to give Cop A motive to get revenge. The witness though, has maniacal behavior and actually uses the killing of Cop B, to her gang's advantage, so it was more sinister than just self defense, which is why Cop B is more angry than usual. If that doesn't work, can I do anything to improve it?
In the movie Magnum Force for example, there are at least three cops and a police Lieutenant who conspire together to murder several felonious criminals in the city. So it seems that in order for something like that to happen, one has to ask the other, and one of them happen to make rank to Lieutenant, even though he is the type to commit murder out of a vendetta if pushed far enough.
Cop B's brother is on the force (not present at the shootout) and teams up with Cop A. Definitely they don't tell the boss.
Okay thanks, but I can't give Cop A a brother, it just complicates the plot and Cop A's character development. I need it to be a friend but no blood relation if I can get that to work.
Oh sorry. Well I was thinking about my story and where I need it go. I need to have a whole team of cops working together to get the gangsters, but by illegal means. I need at least five posssibly to have the ending go the way I want. But they don't have to kill the villains, if not be. What if I wrote it so that a group of cops who wants justice for Cop B, tells the captain that they know that the gang will be committing a crime soon which they can be caught in the act for and busted? They tell the captain, "nevermind how we know this information, we just need your help to get a sting authorized, and to help it be successful, after it's over". They also tell him that they cannot tell him in advance when the crime will happen, but will tell the captain when it will happen, soon before it does, so they will have justification to execute the sting on a moment's notice, cause if they tell the captain in advance when it will happen, then it's not in their best interest in case the captain is not in for it. Will this be a better appproach to get the captain involved, or is this not convincing either?
But then when the cops kill every single one of the gang members, isn't the captain going to proceed to arrest every single one of the cops?
I'm thinking just a couple of cops start killing, and things get heavy from there. And yes the captain will be after them after things go wrong. Does this work better?
No, if Cop A knows that Cop B is undercover then how many other cops in the force know? It does sound as if it's common knowledge, and, like I say, there will be at least one bent cop who will "let it slip". Also, that vendetta...the person who killed Cop B was a witness under police protection, and presumably had cut a deal. So is the new police stance that if the mob doesn't get you before the trial, we'll get you after you've done your job? Or are they now prepared to kill random gangsters just because they can? The first gives a great incentive for a grass to keep quiet, and the second is a totally corrupt police force justifying murder and mayhem on the streets because they're the toughest gang around...oh, and by the way, we've got badges to prove it - they no longer have to bother with fitting somebody up, they've just elected themselves judge, jury and executioner!
In a lot of movies, or TV shows, like In the Line of Fire or 24, if the criminal organization suspects their new member wannabe of perhaps being an undercover cop, they will test him by giving him an empty pistol, or bullet sometimes, and have him kill a helpless person. However, is that realistic? I mean if you are an undercover cop, and you are giving one bullet and are forced at gunpoint to kill someone, wouldn't you do it anyway? If you don't you will die, along with the other person anyway. So it's inevitable, and there is no way you wouldn't do it, even if you were a cop. So what does this situation logically prove really? I was thinking of using the same thing, in order for an undercover's loyalty to be tested, so they can gain trust, quicker for the story. But is that scenario as logical or realistic as the movies would have you think?
killing is more of a gang thing, for a undercover cop and mafia better to have him supply drugs or launder money.
Depends on the organization. Is it Italian US-based mafia or something else ? What illegal activities does the organization participate in ? Are they drug smugglers, money launderers, or something else ? How large is the organization ? That will impact how much they need to trust them.
