Intimidating a witness ma
Examples include: Some states’ statutes criminalize intentionally influencing a witness by any means.Others require a use of force, threat of force, or use of intimidation or coercion.Therefore, practically no one is excluded from being used as a tool for the prosecution’s war against a defendant in witness intimidation cases. The third and final parameter of evidence required is the motive of the defendant.Thanks to the Constitution, it is the burden of the Commonwealth to prove the defendant acted “with the specific intent to impede, instruct, delay, or otherwise interfere with a criminal investigation.” What’s more, the prosecution must prove this .
For starters, the criminal statute is very loosely defined, which makes it easy for the prosecution to use the “crime” to seek harsher punishments for defendants.If the defendant is involved in witness tampering committed by another person, he also can be charged with a crime.For instance, if the defendant pays someone to contact a witness or is involved in planning a threat or attack on a witness, he could be charged with witness intimidation or conspiracy to commit the crime.The attorney can create reasonable doubt with effective cross-examination and through the presentation of evidence.
Also, if any statements were collected unlawfully, such as without the police reading a client his or her of Miranda rights, a motion can be filed to have the statement suppressed and inadmissible at trial.Under the first type of statute, simply asking a witness to testify in your favor constitutes witness tampering.The other statutes require that the person accused actually threatened or intimidated the witness.The criminal attorney can use her experience and skill to effectively cross-examine a Commonwealth witness who identifies an alleged perpetrator, particularly if the parties are not familiar to one another.