Is co-defendant testimony proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

[princess99]

if a co-accused pleads guilty to a crime and then gives up the other person involved, is that really enough to convict someone? That is the only piece of evidence in this case, nothing else.

[alwaysfree]

Oh ya. That's the game, get caught for a crime with accomplices and see who rats first to get a lighter sentence. The prisons are full of guys who had the testimony of an accomplice and other weak or no other evidence to convict them.

[yourself]

Originally Posted by princess99

if a co-accused pleads guilty to a crime and then gives up the other person involved, is that really enough to convict someone? That is the only piece of evidence in this case, nothing else.

That's not the only piece of evidence. For every element of the crime, there has to be at least some evidence. Elements of the crime include identity of the Defendant and jurisdiction. Further, there's usually evidence of damage.

I've never seen a case where the State only calls one person.

[CenTexLyn]

As yourself alludes to, a conviction is rarely based solely upon accomplice testimony. However, accomplice testimony coupled with even circumstantial evidence is usually going to be sufficient for the finder of fact (either a jury or the judge [in the case of a bench trial]) to find that the burden has been overcome in favor of conviction.

[princess99]

thats literally all there is. Theres also a victim who offers only the sex of the person saying a male but not even sure of the background. Theres no circumstantial evidence either

[Straight]

Originally Posted by princess99

thats literally all there is. Theres also a victim who offers only the sex of the person saying a male but not even sure of the background. Theres no circumstantial evidence either

Think of it this way. The testimony of the other person involved is eye witness testimony.

If you and I rob a bank, I saw you do it. I was there when we planned it. I have names, dates and times.

Just because I was in on the bank job with you doesn't make me a bad witness.

And there's a reason I'm pointing the finger at you instead of just anyone else in the world. Everyone else in the world probably has some sort of alibi, and you don't... because you were there with me.

If I know I'm caught and I'm get offered 5 years instead of 50, then I just might take it. You might, too, if you get the chance. Especially if we know we're caught and that's all there is to it.

So... yeah, the testimony of the guy standing next to me committing a crime is pretty good evidence.

Best of luck

[princess99]

hey thanks, its a bit more complicated than that so ijust want some opinions on what you guys thinkk.. the accomplice was charged with accessory to robbery(getaway driver) but even after pleading guilty says on stand that she did not know a robbery was taking place. When the guy gets in the car he says go go i jjust robbed the dealer (drug dealer). In fact it was a pizza man that was robbed, not a dealer. So she says she neever saw anything actually happen but can assume this is the same robbery were talking about as her car was seen fleeing the scene. ok fair enough, thats too much of a coincidence. But there was phone calls made to a pizza man n also received and she says the other person was never seen on there phone. (the person who made the calls is assume to be the robber)Shes also an ex gf who wen first talking to police says she doesnt talk to her ex no more cus he cheated n blah blah. Shse extremely uncooperative n tells lies and almost 2 years later gives them a name.
Now i know no one can tell me wats gunna happen it could g either way, but does she seem credible? Her story is consistent with times and place as the victim though..

Originally Posted by Straight

Think of it this way. The testimony of the other person involved is eye witness testimony.

If you and I rob a bank, I saw you do it. I was there when we planned it. I have names, dates and times.

Just because I was in on the bank job with you doesn't make me a bad witness.

And there's a reason I'm pointing the finger at you instead of just anyone else in the world. Everyone else in the world probably has some sort of alibi, and you don't... because you were there with me.

If I know I'm caught and I'm get offered 5 years instead of 50, then I just might take it. You might, too, if you get the chance. Especially if we know we're caught and that's all there is to it.



Best of luck

[yourself]

credibility is a matter for the trier of fact to weigh. All of the crap, lies, and whatnot will be brought in as impeachment testimony by the Defense (rarely, the State will try to bring it in to deflect some of the potency of the impeachment).

Is she credible? We'll see what a jury or judge has to say. Is she as credible as Mother Teresa? No, but that's not the be all and end all of credibility, honesty, or truthfulness.

And, from your description, there's more than one witness, direct and circumstantial.

[alwaysfree]

This is just my opinion that I arrived at sitting in prison and listening to everyones story that wanted to talk. Personally I would be having my lawyer see what kind of plea bargain he could get instead of waiting for the jury or judge to come back with a decision. As stated this is just an old cons opinion. Goodluck.

[princess99]

ya the other witness is the victim.. his evidence was of what happened but when asked if he can identify my bf he says he can not.

He was offered a deal of 9 months...i duno if that deal can be takin anymore probably not.

life sux.

[KamisSister]

Judge or jury?

[princess99]

judge