Hi, everyone! I've started writing a scifi mystery in which I have one character giving a statement to my protagonist saying that they did not see the victim or the murderer, or anything unusual, on the night of the murder in question even though they were near the scene of the crime. Due to the character's position (they were guarding something) my protagonist knows this is physically impossible. They MUST have either seen the victim walk past them on their way to the murderer (there's no other path the victim could have taken and the character was at their post the whole time) or be the murderer themselves. Is being able to stand where the other character was standing, looking, and saying, "Yep, they definitely have to have seen something," enough evidence for my protagonist to: 1. Arrest him for making a false statement? 2. Arrest him for obstructing the course of justice? 3. Arrest him on the suspicion of murder? (I realise that if she could, however, she'd be unable to charge him unless she uncovered something else.)
Is this a scifi setting that absolutely mirrors the current system in a certain jurisdiction? If yes, you should mention that jurisdiction. If no, then our answers will be approximations. In general, though - arresting someone isn't the ultimate goal. It may not even be a temporary goal. All "arresting" means is that you lawfully prevent someone from going where they want to go. People can be charged without being arrested, and sometimes arrested without being charged. And they can have both of those things happen without being convicted, which is the ultimate goal of the prosecutorial side of the justice system. So, could someone be charged and likely convicted for these things? At least in my jurisdiction, your crimes 1&2 are the same thing - making a false statement (to police) is obstruction of justice. If the witness was under oath (even just to the police) at the time, the charge would be perjury. And, yes, I'd say that if your guys can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness must have seen something, then the witness could be convicted. But the witness could just refuse to answer - not lie, just not answer - and not be charged with anything. For your third possible charge - it feels like a hell of a stretch. You're not supposed to arrest people unless you have "probable cause" (good reason to believe they committed the crime) and just refusing to say you saw someone is a hell of a long way from committing murder. I mean, police can arrest people for whatever the hell they want, but it's unlikely charges will be laid and the police can be in trouble for false arrest, etc. if they abuse their power.
I'd say it closely (but not absolutely) mirrors the current system in England because it's set in the future. (So, in hindsight, I'm not too sure if scifi is the right label or not.) Interesting...The ultimate goal of the arresting thing, for one and two at least, is that my protagonist wants to scare the character into telling the truth. "Tell me the truth or I'll arrest you for obstructing the course of justice" is basically what she's getting across to the other character in the hope that she'll be given a lead. I guess the third charge is a stretch. And I also guess arresting them (or, at least, threatening to) for obstructing the course of justice would be the better option, seeing as it is an option, if that makes sense. The more likely answer is that they're lying rather than that they're the murderer, and so it should be assumed that they're lying. (?)
There's a lot of strategy involved in deciding when/if to arrest someone rather than just charge them, and there are definitely strategies involved in police making what threats they make. I can't speak to that stuff at all. And I don't know much about the system in the UK, but at least in some jurisdictions people can't be arrested for misdemeanor charges, so you'd need to check on that.
It would be hard, actually impossible, in any fair system of jurisprudence to bring solid charges against someone because the authorities assert or argue that the person must have seen something. If the person denies it, then he/she is entitled to assert he/she didn't see it. The authorities must establish, in a court of law, that it is far more likely than not that the person is lying. What if your person says he/she was reading a book, or napping, or lost in thought? Lousy guarding, but not inconsistent with failure to see. IMHO
Yup, just because someone is at their post, "observing everything that takes place within sight or hearing" doesn't mean they didn't look at their watch, or their shoes, or just mentally blank out for a bit and fail to notice something. More diffiicult if they are specifically tasked with controlling entrance to a door or something, but look at any congressional (or parliamentary, I would assume) testimony for people in the hotseat saying "I don't recall" over and over again. Can't be proven to be false without some other evidence (like emails stating that you were lying), so there's really no case to be made. ETA: This
Seeing and perceiving are two very different things. And eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable... too easy to become prejudiced after the fact by confirmation bias, bandwagon effect, bad memory, mental mythology, etc, which is why prosecutors lean so much on forensics, which, in theory, are incapable of becoming prejudiced. And perjury is only perjury if the lie is deliberate and directly material to the matter being contested, so I think it would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone "must have seen something." A false statement to police is probably easier to prove... not sure about that.
I thought of something else that may or may not be relevant. If there is a witness who was in a place where something is alleged to have occurred, and says it did not occur, that is strong evidence that it did not occur. You as author know what really happened, but I think your judicial characters have to take into account the testimony. If the guy sticks to his story, it makes it hard to prove that the case you are arguing occurred, in the world of your characters I mean. Does that make sense?
I can see where you're coming from, but they have the dead body, so it definitely happened. XD Thank you for all the replies! My protag isn't going to charge them with anything.
The guy covered in blood with the bloody knife sitting next to the disemboweled body talking to them while having a smoke. Nope he couldn't have done it. It was Mrs. Fleischman from the next apartment across the hall baking cookies. Arrest the cookie burning bitch. On the cereal, they would do a forensics analysis on the body, and the surrounding area for evidence. And talk to everyone within close proximity to the body determine if the killer was spotted or the vic had enemies. It would be a lengthy investigation, and they would build a case around the party that raises the most suspicion to give them probable cause to arrest someone. And then try to see if the evidence collected will give them enough for a conviction.
Evidence is "[a]ny species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, concrete objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their contention." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1968).
