Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

Re: Prosecuting Attourney Acting Once Charges Are Dropped

Yes. A crime is against the people of the state that you are located in. A prosecutor can proceed with a case even if the complainant wants to drop the charges. A prosecutor would have a hard time proving the case at trial, in front of a jury, if the complainant does not wish to testify. You should consult with a local attorney if charges are filed against you. Good luck.

Re: Prosecuting Attourney Acting Once Charges Are Dropped

I am replying to your question, even though another attorney already replied, because I am a prosecuting attorney and you have questioned why someone in my position did what he did.

I agree with the first answer on one point: a crime is an offense against the community, not just against the named victim. Because of that, the victim does not have veto-power over whether a charge is issued or dropped. That power rests solely with your elected county Prosecuting Attorney.

Victims may change their minds about prosecuting for varied personal reasons (they got paid for their loss, don't want to come to court, etc.). Prosecutors have to look at larger issues on behalf of the whole community, and manytimes prosecute in the face of a victim who does not "want to come to court". For example, the suspect may have a prior record.

The first answer suggests that if the victim "does not wish to testify" the prosecutor's case may be lost. That's not true. The victim will be subpoenaed to court, which is a court order to appear ... not a 'suggestion to drop by'. Unless the victim's testimony/facts differ from those known when the case was issued, the prosecutor won't be hampered.

I am frequently asked "why did you issue this case?" (or, sometimes, "why DIDN'T you issue?"). The people who ask those questions generally don't know all that I do about the facts. The answer to their question is generally found in what FACTS were known to me from the police investigation paperwork, witness/suspect statements, lab reports, etc. Once I explain what facts the investigation turned up, my charging decision is generally no longer an issue.

And there's the rub with the first posted answer. It concludes that the prosecutor would have a hard time proving the case to a jury. Really?!? How does HE know? I know that I don't know that yet, because I don't know the FACTS. I only know what you told us, which is not much.

You admitted that a crime occurred ("something was stolen from your office"). That sounds like an embezzlement, or a larceny, or a receiving/concealing stolen property charge could be issued (... but against whom?).

What I don't know is:

* what did the investigation reveal/prove?

* what was 'inconclusive' about the investigation? (I presume this had something to do with 'who done it'.)

* was there some follow-up investigation (which you may not know about)?

* have you read the entire police report (and, thus, know the facts that the charging prosecutor knew)?

* what charge(s) was (were) issued?

* have you spoken to the charging prosecutor to ask him/her directly why the charge was issued?

My last question is a suggestion for you: Contact the prosecutor and ask questions. If you're not satisfied, go to the court hearings to see what the EVIDENCE is.

Of course, if YOU were charged, I agree with the first answer: contact an attorney to get legal advice.