rape
USA/North Carolina/Double Jeopardy
<p>Is it lawful to attain prosecution of an individual based solely upon hearsay of 2 collaborated adults (for alleged multiple indecent liberty) charges on a toddler, which were dismissed 7 years later. Total sentence was 70 years.</p>
<p>The prosecution of the time solely used the evidence deriving out of the 7 charges to additionally, but falsely create a rape charge, which was not dismissed, in spite no whatsoever physical evidence existed.</p>
<p>Considering the age of the toddler at the time, the toddler was exempt from testifying in court. The toddler also allegedly claimed 2 other persons as perpetrators to officials, according to court documents. This information wa however completely suppressed by the judicial entities of the time, so as to shield the judicial wrongdoing. Prosecution and court relied solely upon hearsay of 2 individuals, who both had motive to perjury.</p>
<p>As explained above. Initially 8 charges were sought, 8 charges were prosecuted. 7 were dismissed within 7 years of litigation. 1 charge remains.</p>
<p>However, the alleged evidence of the 7 charges which were dissmissed was carried over to uphold the 8th charge. That charge by itself has absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever.</p>
<p>How can this be legal?</p>

<p>It's not clear what you are asking (&quot;How can this be legal?&quot;), so I suppose it may mean that you don't understand the relationship between dismissal of a charge and admissibility of evidence. Or you think that physical evidence is required by law. You might try clarifying the question.</p>
<p>A prosecution can be dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice means that the charge cannot be pursued again, whereas dismissal without prejudice allows re-filing the charges, and is basically a temporary delay. Dismissal with prejudice can occur especially when the defendants fundamental rights were violated, for instance with illegally-obtained evidence. Dismissal without prejudice may arise because the prosecution needs to gather more evidence. The fact that a prosecution had started with an intent to use certain evidence does not mean that the evidence is itself now inaccessible. So in principle, any evidence that would have been used in an earlier prosecution can still be used. In the case of a felony, it does not legally matter how much time has elapsed since the alleged crime and the prosecution. So on the face of it, there is still a viable prosecution.</p>
<p>Physical (forensic) evidence is not required to obtain a criminal conviction, all that is required is testimony that &quot;fully satisfies or entirely convinces [the jury] of the defendant's guilt&quot;. That can be the testimony of two witnesses. While &quot;hearsay&quot; evidence is excluded, the definition of &quot;hearsay&quot; is complicated, since hearsay is what people generally think is hearsay <em>but</em> certain things are excluded from the definition of hearsay (therefore are admissible). <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FRE 803</a> spells out the exceptions: 803(4) is widely used to allow testimony by the in the case of sexual assault of children. <a href="https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1751&amp;context=mulr" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> surveys a number of relevant cases, and see also <a href="https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&amp;context=lf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a> – the point is that testimony from a psychologist, social worker, parent or other person as to what the child said can be admissible.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is it lawful to attain prosecution of an individual based solely upon
hearsay of 2 collaborated adults (for alleged multiple indecent
liberty) charges on a toddler, which were dismissed 7 years later.
Total sentence was 70 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. Furthermore, 7 years later is too late to raise most kinds of irregularities or insufficiencies of evidence at the trial, like the admission of hearsay evidence that should have been excluded.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That charge by itself has absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sworn testimony is sufficient for a conviction. No physical evidence is required to support a conviction.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the case of a felony, it does not legally matter how much time has
elapsed since the alleged crime and the prosecution. So on the face of
it, there is still a viable prosecution.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most jurisdictions have statutes of limitations for felonies, but not all of them do.</p>
<p>At seven years out, to make a collateral attack on a conviction, one needs to meet very high and quite intricate procedural and substantive standards to set aside a conviction, either in a state court proceeding, or if relief is denied, in a subsequent habeas corpus petition in federal court once all state court remedies are exhausted. The federal remedy is also limited to violations of federal constitutional rights, and not all violations of rights that could have led to a wrongful conviction.</p>
<p>The law regarding whether a conviction that is wrongful can be set aside even if the procedure was unflawed, based solely upon &quot;actual innocence&quot; is unsettled.</p>
<p><strong>Double Jeopardy</strong></p>
<p>The doctrine of double jeopardy does not prohibit the retrial of someone who is convicted of a crime and then has that conviction set aside for reasons other than lack of guilt. It basically prohibits retrials of people who are acquitted and retrials of people who are convicted whose conviction remains in force.</p>
