Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Accused with no recourse

You have to remember that the modern criminal justice system is about Accusers, without whom the cops, DAs, and judges would be looking for work. Fair trials and respect for the rights of the Accused are, for the most part, a fairy tale left over from high school civics class. The possible results depend on a number of factors: the amount of time since the incident (there is still some vestige of a right to a speedy trial), the willingness of the accuser to testify, how easily your son can be scared into pleading guilty, and most of all, His Ability To Afford A Good Private Lawyer. Or he can use the public defender if he wants to plead guilty. Good luck.

Re: Accused with no recourse

Does "the state take a position of probable guilt" when someone is accused? No. But if it considers the accusation credible, then it does. After all, we don't want the police to arreat anyone *unless* they think he's guilty. And if the law required district attorneys to presume everyone is innocent they could never even file charges. Juries have to presume that each defendant is innocent, but law enforcement doesn't.

You say there was no investigation, but the police at least spoke to the girlfriend. That may be all the investigation they needed before deciding to arrest your son.

You ask "Why isn't he allowed to face his accuser and tell his side?" He's allowed to tell his side to anyone he chooses, and he may have already told it to the police. But if he's smart he'll only tell it to his lawyer for now.

There is a procedure in which the accused gets to face his accuser. It is called a trial, and in your son's case it hasn't happened yet. The constitution says no one can be *convicted* without being allowed to confront the witnesses against him. So far, he hasn't been.

While there may be no *physical* evidence of the crime, there is the girlfriend's testimony. Testimony is a form of evidence, even though many laypeople don't think of it that way.

Victim testimony is often the only evidence of a crime. This is especially true of crimes which (1) involve no weapons, documents or other instrumentalities; (2) don't cause physical injuries; and (3) take place when no one else is present. Prosecuting such crimes would be impossible if they couldn't be proven via victim testimony.

Being held for three days without going to court sounds excessive but is sometimes necessary -- for example, when the suspect is arrested at the beginning of a three-day weekend. But even if the police violated his rights by holding him too long, that fact would have no bearing on whether he is guilty of the crime and would not prevent the D.A. from prosecuting him.

It's odd that your son didn't see a lawyer, but not necessarily improper. Did he ask to see one? The police are not required to find attorneys for arrestees who don't request one.

If the police questioned him and he demanded an attorney but they kept questioning him anyway then the statements he made after his demand will not be admissible in court. Again, though, this has nothing to do with whether he's guilty and will not prevent a prosecution.

Have your son's civil rights been violated? Maybe. As I said earlier, being jailed for three days without going to court is a bit unusual; unless there is a good reason for the delay this may be a violation. Nothing else you have said suggests that the police have done anything wrong.