Sinful Attractions Book 4
Autore
Luci Fer
Letto da
49,2K
Capitoli
77
Chapter One
Summary
Trinity and Stephen have just dodged one bullet, only to find themselves in the line of fire again. This time, a ~colleague~ has blabbed to the wrong people, and they’re facing trial for a crime they thought they’d left in the past. Luckily, they’ve got Benji in their corner. He’s a lawyer who’s pulled off some impressive feats, but this case might require a bona fide miracle.
Age Rating: 18+
Benji
When you get arrested, there’s a certain order to things. The police have to follow a set of legal steps during and after the arrest to make sure they’re respecting your rights.
An arrest happens when the police take you into custody. It’s official the moment you can’t just walk away from the officer arresting you.
Once you’re arrested and booked, your case goes to the right prosecutor's office. There, they decide what charges to file, if any.
You have the right to a speedy trial. This usually means the prosecutor has to file charges within 72 hours (48 hours in some states). The prosecutor can change the charges later if they find more evidence.
Next comes the arraignment. This is when the charges against you are read in court and you’re asked to plead guilty or not guilty. You might be able to get out of jail after your arrest and before your trial by posting bail.
Bail is money you pay to the court to promise you’ll show up for future court appearances. If you do, you get your bail money back. If you don’t, the court keeps the money and can issue a warrant for your arrest.
And that’s exactly what I’m planning to do.
Two days ago, some of my best friends were arrested and charged with murder. It was a setup by the corrupt Chicago PD, which we’d recently found out about.
Now, I’m here after their bail hearing. The biggest surprise? DA Carson decided not to take the case the CPD brought forward this time.
Instead, she stepped away from the case, citing a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. I was more than a little impressed. Liz never backs down from a fight, unless she knows something I don’t.
The bail hearing went our way, since we had the means to post bail. Now, I’m waiting for my clients to meet me once they’re through booking and released on their own recognizance.
The ADA who was brought in to handle the case tried to argue flight risk. But with a weak case built on hearsay evidence and no body, against two families with clean records, it was a long shot.
Documents can be considered hearsay if they contain statements made outside of court (and not under oath) and are being used in court to prove the truth of those statements.
There are many exceptions to the rule against hearsay. If a document doesn’t meet an exception, the court can prevent its admission as evidence.
The rule against hearsay is simple on the surface, but it has many exceptions. The rule is there to prevent secondhand statements made outside of court from being used as evidence at trial, because they might not be reliable.
There are 23 exceptions in the federal rules that allow for out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence, even if the person who made them can’t appear in court. But only a few of them are used regularly.
And of course, the ADA chose to use one in this case.
Excited Utterance. I saw it coming.
Excited utterance is a hearsay exception that applies when there’s been a startling event and the person made the statement while under the excitement or stress of the event.
My argument? The defendants, or Chad in this case, weren’t under any stress when the statement was made. Why? Because they knew the meeting was happening. It wasn’t a surprise to them. And we already knew the detectives were dirty.
The judge said she’d consider it later when looking at the bail application. State law usually follows the Federal Rules of Evidence, but not always. The states can vary in the exceptions they recognize, so I think she wanted to check for precedence before ruling.
But I wasn’t too worried. I always have a trick up my sleeve. If the judge applies the hearsay exception, I’ll argue the Catchall Exception to the rule against hearsay. It says that a hearsay statement can be admitted if it:
1. Has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
2. Is offered to help prove a material fact
3. Is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
4. Would forward the cause of justice
5. The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence
If it’s accepted, I’ll argue the trustworthiness of Chad's statement before his death. Detective Peters implied in the recording that Chad was affiliated with them, and they’ve been documented as corrupt.
If they decide to use any of them, and the court admits hearsay evidence under one of the exceptions, then the credibility of the person offering the statement can be attacked.
This attack has to be supported by admissible evidence, but it can’t be a prior inconsistent statement, bias, or other evidence that would show that the person has a reason to lie or not remember accurately. I can argue, prove, and fact-check all of that.
So, there’s only one thing left to do. Go get my clients, get the hell out of here, and get ready for the main event!
I head over to where my buddy Stephen is standing. I see his eyes light up when he sees his wife coming towards him.
Stephen says, “Hi.”
Trinity replies, “Hi.”
They smile at each other with more love than I’ve ever seen between two people. In that moment, I know exactly what I’m fighting for. . .
