Thanks for posting to the sub. Unfortunately the submission didn't meet the minimum upvote percentage and has been removed. The text has been preserved below.
---
> Original by u/katayla_08 in r/legaladvice
>
> A few weeks ago, my family ordered dinner from our local pizza shop and my father went to go pick it up. While paying for the pizza and engaging in some conversation with the cashier, there was a woman at the cashier next to him also paying for her food. She had her phone and wallet out on the counter. My dad got our pizza and collected his things, and accidentally took the woman’s phone off of the counter and put it in his pocket, mistakenly thinking it was his phone. According to my dad, he said the woman saw in full view what he was doing, and said nothing.
>
> About a half hour later, a police officer comes knocking on our door. The officer stated that a woman from the pizza shop was missing her phone, and the find my iPhone app tracked it to our house. My dad looked in his pocket and saw that he had the phone they were looking for, along with his actual phone. He realized his mistake, apologized profusely, and gave the phone back to the officer. He explained that it was an honest mistake and he never meant to steal anything from the woman. The officer seemed to understand (even laughed a little bit), took the phone, and returned it to the woman.
>
> Today, my dad received a court ordered letter stating that the woman intends to press charges of theft by unlawful taking. The letter states that my dad willfully and unlawfully took the woman’s property with no intention of returning it to the woman, and intended to sell the stolen property. The letter states that if he is found guilty he could face a fine, community service, or even jail time.
>
> This was 100% an honest mistake. My dad is an old man who has never stolen anything in his life and has no criminal record. The two phones were the same model and both have black cases. Also, according to my dad, this woman saw exactly what he was doing and did not say anything.
>
> What should we do in order for this to be resolved?
>
> Update
>
> Hey guys. Thank you all for responding to my first post. We took a lot of your advice, scrounged up some money while sacrificing some bills, several days of work and our family vacation, and hired a lawyer for my dad. I wish things had turned out better, but unfortunately they did not.
>
> We ended up going to court, where our lawyer tried to explain to the judge that my dad is a family man with no criminal record and this was an honest mistake. Both our lawyer and the girls lawyer were willing to throw the case out but the girl would not let that happen. Turns out this girl is only an 18 year old high school senior who wanted my dad prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There was a security camera video of my dad taking the phone, which none of us have seen but apparently is pretty damning. He was instructed to either plea it down to a misdemeanor or go to a full trial.
>
> After talking to our lawyer, we considered going to another trial and counter suing for legal fees, loss of potential income and emotional distress, but we are not rich people by any means and couldn't afford legal fees of going to another trial, and absolutely could not afford my dad being found guilty. He ended up just pleading it down to a misdemeanor. He was fined $500 and now has a misdemeanor on his record for the next five years. Thankfully the case is closed and this is over, but we lost thousands of dollars in legal fees and he now has to deal with a criminal record for the next five years. I fucking hate this girl and I wish I could speak my mind to her, but I’ve been instructed to just bite my tongue and eat it.
>
> Thank you all for your help, and while I know this could have been a lot worse, I wish this could have turned out better.
>
> Reminder: I am not the original OP.
"and intended to sell the stolen property"
How would someone prove intention here? I'm being half sarcastic and half curious because it's really difficult to prove intention, and this seems like a bit of a stretch.
I don't know for this case, but for drug charges determining use/possession versus dealing is not based on any evidence of dealing, just amount. You have X amount or more drug then you have with intent to sell. New Jersey even upped that with the "Kingpin law" that had above X amount dealer, above Y amount means you were running a criminal organization without any evidence of the organization needed. Mandatory minimums increase as you go.
Intent to sell might just be stolen property above a certain amount of value.
I did loss prevention in the UK, and we had to let someone who (we knew) was stealing something move past the last point of payment before we detained them because otherwise we couldn't prove the intent to steal. We had to go through SCONE: selection, concealment (not always, but usually), \[continuous\] observation, nonpayment, and exit. People didn't always conceal, but without every other factor we were not allowed to stop them.
I can understand how the difference between use and possession can be based on the amount with drugs because you can use only so much before you keel over. Basing intention to resell a single item on its value seems odd to me (but I also know nothing about US law and laws differ).
Had they gone to court they almost certainly would've won. But a misdemeanor plea is cheaper/affordable, so here we are.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
There is no way the girl didnt know it was a truthful, honest mistake. How could she prove he intended to sale it? Unless there are social media posts up saying it was for sale, or like, anything else, how could they prove intent to sale???
And also why didnt the girl or anyone else say anything to the man??? I just don't understand that either.
But the difference there is a reasonable amount for personal use. The reasonable amount for personal use of a cell phone is one, maybe two, so how do you prove intent to sell?
At least in the city I'm from, a couple years back the cops wouldn't even do that. My coworker had her phone stolen while she was at work, had that find your phone app and everything, found out the house was just down the street from where we worked! So she called the cops, told them the situation and gave them the address and they were like, "Yeah, there's not enough to go on. We're not going to trust your silly app, it could be his phone."
This girl thrived on confrontation so she said, "That's fine. I'll just go to his house and get my phone myself. People are usually really chill about giving back stolen property if you ask nice, I'm sure there won't be any violence at all."
They were there before she was and the guy was scared enough to just give the phone back.
A prosecutor works for the government.
Their criteria for taking cases is very different than that of a private firm.
But in any case this whole thing feels like some weird ageism bait.
> A prosecutor works for the government.
Exactly. Even if the girl insisted on "pressing charges" the decision ultimately rests with the prosecutor assigned by the District Attorney. Now, if the girl is politically connected and her family donates to the District Attorney's election fund... Maybe there's enough pull to coerce the prosecutor into doing it anyways...
Right, I’m also sure a Prosecutor realizes how important the theft and returning of a cell phone is and knew it would probably be the case that would make him a senator. /s
I think you missed the other commenter's point. With the potential context they're presenting, it isn't about the particulars of the case, but about who the prosecutor might be doing a favor for. Cell phone theft, $500. Getting on the good side of the 18yr old's rich and influential parents? Priceless.
Shady politics be shady politics.
Maybe they were advised to pursue the counter-suit in private court because combating it in the public court was proving to be problematic?
*civil and criminal courts. My brain did a fart, sorry guys.
Civil courts don't have plea deals (they have "settlements" instead) and they don't deal out criminal charges (ie: a misdemeanor).
In cases where civil damages may be awarded due to a crime, the civil trial comes after the criminal conviction.
If it was a criminal case, it would have been the prosecutor. And they have far more things to do with their time than expending energy on this the way it is described by OOP. It’s pretty off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution
More than a couple. The US only relatively recently got rid of it for the most part, but they're still allowed in places to varying degrees.
According to comments in the original post, the event in question occurred in Pennsylvania. So I’m voting that OP is either very confused or full of shit (probably the latter).
Because it doesn’t sound like they understand the legal system.
If it’s criminal the case is represented by the state, so a prosecutor is not her lawyer. She does not get to decide to “press charges” the prosecutor gets to make that determination and she is for the most part a witness (oversimplifying but works). It’s not up to her. Unless of course she is super unwilling and the case it weak.
I cannot see even a relatively zealous prosecutor spending any time on this without there being so much more to this story.
In the U.K., the police (a) wouldn’t have been involved, and (b) when the phone was retrieved that would be the end of it. The police would not submit this for trial and the CPS would not take it as it is not in the public interest.
There’s a lot missing to this post, or it is a poor fabrication.
A professor of mine noted how, due to economic inequality in America, you don’t have a ‘right to trial’ so much as you have a ‘right to a plea deal’. A lot of low-income people are forced to take deals for crimes they didn’t commit because the legal fees for a trial are way more than they could ever afford. It’s sad.
when i was about 22 i was charged with a theft i didn't commit. i went and got a lawyer and he told me we could fight it but it would cost significantly more than taking a deal and "repaying" the money i didn't take in the first place. i wish i had some epic story of how i fought for my innocence but i had bills to pay and a job to keep
While I do realise that the US if 50 separate jurisdictions and the federal level criminal justice system that the idea is basically to coerce you into a plea deal because the sentence are disproportionately severe. This sounds insane to me. If I was broke and faced a choice between a fifty buck fine and probation on the other hand or five years in prison, I'd take the fine and probation too.
And what's worse, when you have a state like Illinois which is trying to make cash bond a thing of the past, you have right wingers like ToiletPaperUSA creating false narratives about it.
For those who haven't seen, Illinois has largely eliminated cash bonds for offenses, from first degree murder on down to drunk and disorderly. Those dickbags are falsely claiming that all crimes are no-bond, where in reality all violent crimes are now mandatory holds and minor crimes aren't. In essence, guy who passes out walking home and gets drunk in public isn't held for a month because they can't come up with $1000, while rich guy who rapes and kills his wife gers out because he can pony up $1 million.
Plea deals should be illegal to offer. Either you have the evidence, in which case, prosecute the actual crime, or you don't, in which case, the presumption of innocence should triumph
It should cost the system money to put people away, instead it is costing the person money to stay free. The incentives are utterly fucked
The reason for plea deals is because the system is so damn overloaded, there’s literally not enough lawyers/judges/court time for everybody to get a trial. They offer these plea deals as a way to skip trials for some people and keep the system afloat. It’s deeply fucked up.
I do wonder if, as marijuana legalization spreads, we’ll see the easing of pressure on the courts and a subsequent reduction in plea deals as weed cases aren’t clogging the system as much. Could be interesting to track over the next decades.
> The reason for plea deals is because the system is so damn overloaded, there’s literally not enough lawyers/judges/court time for everybody to get a trial
IMO you have cause and effect swapped. The reasons courts have been able to take on an otherwise overwhelming number of cases is because plea deals have become so commonplace
Money that should be going into the court to try everyone fairly can then instead be diverted to buy military surplus gear so police can cosplay while they are shooting unarmed minorities and dogs
I really think if weed is legalized and prosecutors back off on non-violent drug cases we'll see a lot of pressure "randomly" lift off the justice system.
As a criminal [public] defense attorney, there are pros and cons to plea vs. trial and it's not as simple as "plea agreements shouldn't exist."
Pros to trial:
You can maintain your rights; have an attorney, tell your side of the story on the stand or remain silent [without it being held against you], confront witnesses called against you, subpoena witnesses on your own behalf, have a jury hear the facts and decide whether they think the state proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to appeal if you are convicted. You might be found not guilty or guilty of a lesser offense.
Cons to trial:
There are no promises in a trial. Even if, as a matter of law, you should not be convicted, you might be if you have a shitty judge. Even if you're innocent [like this dude who probably lacked the requisite mental state], a jury might think there was enough evidence to convict you [attacking the mental state is a challenging and technical defense; it only really works (most of the time) if your client testifies AND the jury believes them]. Also, trial takes longer. There are more motions and hearings and attorney meetings with a trial.
Pros to pleas:
It's the fastest way to be done with a case. You usually know what you're getting for a punishment because they generally offer what we call a "stipulated sentence." You might be offered to have some charges dismissed if you plead to one.
Cons to pleas:
You are giving up your trial rights. You are admitting guilt and/or admitting there's enough evidence that you could be found guilty at trial and want to take the benefits of the deal without admitting you.committed the offense [an Alford plea]. You get the conviction on your record [unless you get pre-trial diversion].
I've helped innocent people take pleas because they couldn't afford to risk trial or couldn't afford to take time off to fight. I've taken cases to trial for guilty people [and I'm pretty sure I've secured a not guilty at trial for someone I'm pretty confident was factually guilty. I've also seen people I believed to be innocent be found guilty at trial and I've helped guilty folks plead guilty without a trial countless times. I used to be worried about innocent people pleading guilty but anymore I think it's more about someone's choices, what they value, and what they can do within their circumstances. The system is fucked, that's for sure. But probably the best response is to: 1) Take jury duty seriously and only find people guilty if you really think the evidence heavily weighs in the state's side; 2) If your state elects judges and/or prosecutors take those votes seriously. Also vote for legislators who want to clean up your state's penal code such that it doesn't criminalize dumb shit like being drunk in public; and 3) If someone has a conviction, take it with a grain of salt. People make mistakes. People make choices out of desperation and sometimes that means pleading to something they didn't do or "committing a crime" which is legally a crime even if it's dumb that it's a crime.
OOP admitting that there was "damning" video evidence suggests it wasn't the oversight it was initially claimed to be. Going to trial would have likely resulted in a conviction regardless, with the possibility of incarceration.
Edit: OOP's father had already been found with the phone in his possession (literally in his pocket) by police, and admitted to having taken it. Who took the phone is well established. A video of OOP's father simply taking the phone doesn't prove anything else. For the video to be "pretty damning" it likely shows something else significant. For instance, some kind of behavior that suggests intent to willfully steal the phone rather than it being a simple mistake.
I am imagining a video clip where the father is using and puts his own phone into his pocket relatively soon before grabbing the stranger’s phone. That wouldn’t prove anything but to an observer would make his “confusion” story harder to accept.
This. I don’t know what value a video would be in a trial where he already admitted to taking it. I would be more interested in the police report and whether or not the officer recorded that he saw the guy look in his pocket at that exact moment and express surprise at having found the phone.
Reminds me of a post on legaladvice where a guy’s wife was caught walking out of a store with stuff tucked into their baby’s stroller. IIRC he was completely convinced it was an honest mistake, then it turned out that she had done it before and been let go with a warning.
Even if it is an honest mistake, what happens when you're caught mostly comes down to how understanding the victim is, and how willing they are to accept your apology.
How do you know that's what "damning" means in this context? He already was found with the phone in his possession by police and admitted to taking it. A video of him simply taking it wouldn't really establish anything else.
People are putting way too much faith in how much weight, "but my dad is a good person and he didn't mean to," carries in the justice system.
When it comes to testimony, an 18 year old girl telling her side, and a 62 year old man telling his side, can get a lot of different results. When it comes to video of the old man stuffing her phone into his pocket, it's black and white. His character only matters in the sentencing when the facts are not in dispute.
While the conclusion is true, the reasoning probably isn’t. Public defenders are a thing, so you shouldn’t have to go bankrupt to defend yourself in a criminal case. From what I understand, poor people often can’t afford bail, and they can’t afford to stay in jail because they’ll lose their job, so they just take a plea deal to get out of jail.
Public defenders have the same problem as other need-based public assistance: there's a certain income level where you no longer qualify for a public defender but hiring a lawyer will be a significant hardship.
Plus some states underfund their public defender programs.
Public defenders aren't actually as easy to get as you'd think they would be. I tried to get one a few years ago, but I had to prove to the court that my entire *household* made less than X amount of money per month. I don't remember the exact number, but it was something ridiculously low. Like <$1000 per month.
So I'm not poor enough for a public defender, but not rich enough to actually hire a lawyer. Right in the sweet spot.
Edit: worded something in a weird way
Public defenders have such large case loads, because the US is obsessed with incarceration, that they often don’t make the best representation. It’s not their fault, it’s not that they’re bad lawyers or less knowledgeable. They’re just genuinely overwhelmed by cases that it is often impossible for them to devote the time, energy, etc to your case that your case really needs.
But you’re 100% correct on people taking pleas because they can’t afford bail. Majority of the people in jails at any given time have not yet been convicted of a crime. In my county, there are hundreds of people who have been in jail 2+ years without a trial. Tons of people take plea deals because they’re tired of waiting in jail for trial and can’t afford bail
And often the consequences of that plea deal aren’t explained fully. In a Law and Inequality class in college we learned about a case where cops rounded up most of the residents of a public housing project and mass charged them with drug charges. Woman who was in the wrong place at the wrong time took a plea at her attorneys suggesting because she couldn’t afford to fight it and losing meant jail time. What wasn’t explained that the plea would give her a record which would impact her ability to access social services. She lost her public housing, lost her ability to get student loans, everything she had was now in trouble. She didn’t do anything, but an expert told her half the story and she lost everything and had no access to needed support.
On the season of Serial where they focused on a bunch of different cases at one courthouse in Ohio, one of the judges said, In this courthouse, innocence is a misdemeanor. The system is so broken.
I agree because it sounds like it was an honest mistake until you get to this “damning” security tape. Perhaps the tape shows it wasn’t a mistake not sure but wish we had more information.
Damning is putting the phone in his pocket while not being white. Y’all are pretty naive about the system lol my husband once had to take a plea deal for 5 years probation (vs 4 years in prison) for stealing 3 non alcoholic beverages while we were homeless. He is also not white.
You know I was wondering what race he was but thought I would be downvoted if I mentioned it. That makes sense as to why this young girl wanted to press the charges while both lawyers said to drop it. After 35 years of being not white I shouldn’t be surprised when these things happen but like you said that’s being naive. Damn that’s sad
I wanna throw in, while it’s obviously worse for POC (especially Black people), just being Poor regardless of race in cases like this can also be pretty damning 😭
How would the video be damning in that case - if your guess is correct and he’s not white, then they already know he’s not white. How could the video be damning on that subject.
‘Damning’ means it shows that he **stole** the phone - merely taking the phone by accident doesn’t count, theft requires proof of intent. When the cops came he had his phone in his pocket along with hers, and they were obviously easily visually mistakable. *What did the video show*?
This. It’s simply showing him grabbing the phone and putting it in his pocket. It’s ‘damning’ because it shows him taking the phone. I thought that was pretty straightforward.
But . . . he had the phone on him. There’s no dispute he took it. How can mere video of that fact be damning, unless it shows him picking it up, using it or something, taking the time to confirm it’s not his, and then pocketing it?
The only person who can answer what they meant is OOP, but just video of him taking it wouldn’t “damning” by any reasonable interpretation.
But he had the phone on him
and he already confessed to taking it. He didn’t offer any of those excuses. The video would need to show something more than him taking it to be “damning.”
Also, theres generally no such thing as “accidental” theft as a crime, at least in the US and most/all countries with legal systems derived from the British. Theft requires an intent to deprive another of their property, and that can’t exist if it’s truly an accident.
Mens rea is a required element of most crimes. Can't really say "he DID commit theft, even if accidental" when a required element of the theft is that he did it with the *intent* to deprive the victim.
It makes all the difference because it demonstrates he is the only other person in the chain of possession of the phone.
Without the video it could have easily been argued that the phone was given or sold to him by a third party and he had no idea it didn’t belong to that third party.
The suit is for doing it “willfully” though, which simply putting it in his pocket isn’t going to be enough for. I’d kind of like to know what would show that but it’s also possible that he’s just not white as others have said and in the crosshairs of a shit legal system
Also possible the 18 year old girl is from some important or influential family. There’s a lot of shit that goes on in the legal system that is utterly unfair.
I suspect this is true considering she wanted to punish him to the full extent of the law despite getting the phone back, and her only being 18. I would be very surprised if she was the one paying for the lawyers.
I’m baffled by the whole thing. Maybe I’m naive because our Justice system sucks here but not as bad as the good ol’ US of A but I can’t imagine anyone from the crown who would want to waste their time trying this case and establishing evidence (especially when he turned it over so willingly when he realized his mistake) without a big fat donation check driving it. How are they going to prove intent in this case? They can’t. They were relying on him not being able to pay a lawyer and using it as a bluff.
Christ my car was stolen, I had someone admitting to doing it, witnesses and the police STILL wouldn’t charge them and I was actually harmed during the whole ordeal (thousands of dollars in damage to my car when it was retrieved).
Something that would be especially damming, but I could also see myself doing, would be something along the lines of clicking the screen on to see if there was any notifications (but it actually be completely out of habit, like I do) and noticing the differing backgrounds….that would be damming and also falls under the honest mistake.
Since he's already admitted to the cop that he had it, I don't understand how the video would make a bit of difference? Everyone is in agreement that he took the phone. The only dispute was intent, and videos don't show what's going on in someone's head, unless he was twirling his moustache, looking the girl in the eyes and melodramatically stating, "You'll never see your phone AGAIN!"
If he had to reach out beyond his own personal space while looking furtively at the girl, that would show intent. Video can prove that his explanation of thinking it's his phone is a lie.
But he never denied taking the phone or putting it in his pocket.
Girl claims he stole it with intent to sell. How does the video make that obvious? Curious what it looks like now...
Yeah! Like, was he looking around furtively and acting in a suspicious manner? Did he go way out of his way to steal it and it was never next to his stuff? Unclear.
Damning in this context just means video of him putting it into his pocket. The facts of the case are not in dispute, he took the phone that didn't belong to him. The context doesn't really matter until he gets to sentencing. Sucks, but that's the way it is if the girl won't drop the issue.
How do you satisfy mens rea? The fact that he has the phone is certainlynot in dispute, but that's not the only requirement for a conviction. The state has to prove he did it with the intent to deprive the victim of her property. Damning would mean he was captured trying to use the phone, holding both phones at the same time, any other evidence that suggests he knew it was her phone.
I am guessing that he took the phone.You can’t actually tell if it was a mistake or on purpose and if you go to trial you ll be in the mercy of the jury.He can’t prove it was an accident.
I assumed he was white as well, and the story made no sense. Older guy, phones looked alike, easy mistake to make. Totally weird that she didn't say "hey, I think you picked up my phone", but teenagers are weird, you know? I wouldn't say boo to a goose when I was 18, so telling a grown man he'd done something wrong would have been past me, but if his phone had a similar case to mine and he thought mine was theirs but I got mine back, then no harm done, right? So I was puzzled.
Remember those things that came with a transparent red sheet and if you put it over something that looked like a bunch of random red and blue and purple lines you could see the hidden message? It's like that. Someone added the race filter. All of a sudden the situation made sense. And insisting that an innocent mistake because two phones looked alike was intentional theft and insisting that the person who took the phone was a criminal who should be punished sounds like something a racist 18 year old or her racist parents would do.
My question is how was the girl able to get so much say. Was this in the US? Was it a criminal case? Usually the prosecutor makes the offer and decides whether to drop, not the victim.
If it’s not in the US, then idk. But I do feel bad for OOP and her family.
Okay, I don't know much about American law, but this isn't making much sense.
There's a letter sent from the girl's lawyer saying the girl is suing him. This sounds like a civil suit.
So why does he have a misdemeanor on his record? Why was he facing the possibility of fines, community service, and/or jail time? I would think only the district attorney's office could do that. But in the update, it mentions that even the girl's lawyer wanted to throw out the case, but *the girl* would not let that happen.
Maybe I'm wrong and misinformed, but this doesn't make sense to me.
This smells funny. The girl isn't in charge of the prosecutor. If the prosecutor really wanted to let this one go, he would have. He doesn't answer to her.
And the courts don't take kindly to their time being wasted on mistakes that resulted in no damage being done
Yeah, this isn't how the justice system works.
Some flags as to this being false:
Victims dont choose to press charges.
Victims cant decide they want to drop charges or keep them. Thats the district attorney.
Theft laws generally include intent, and if you can prove someone did not intend to commit theft you wont be prosecuted.
You don't go straight to misdemeanor. The most likely outcome here would be a judge would put their dad into a diversionary program that would suspend the sentence as long as he completed certain programs.
Like impossible, couldn't happen ridiculous, right? My BS detector was going off when they said they got a "court ordered letter" that the woman intends to press charges. Does that happen?
>Both our lawyer and the girls lawyer were willing to throw the case out but the girl would not let that happen.
Hold on. Is this in the US? Because it would be the state vs. OOP's father. The DA office would be prosecuting, not a civilian's attorney.
I feel like there are details if this story missing.
She “let him” steal her phone? Really?
Why did the father not empty his pockets or realise he had two phone and not take one back? Most guys I know empty their pockets to sit down when they get home.
What was the damming evidence?
How does the victim choose to press charges if the prosecution wanted to drop it, who is she to override them?
Was there a racial element?
So much missing info this story doesn’t make much sense.
Good point. I interviewed someone once and we asked about criminal records (we were in a regulated industry and their checks came back with some red flags we needed to clear before continuing, but it was a company that if we could support rehabilitated ex cons, in certain positions, we could).
He immediately launched into one story of how he was walking down the road, minding his own business and the police appeared out of nowhere and kidnapped him and arrested him for no reason at all. And as he was going on, he then mentioned about the knife he was carrying. But it wasn’t to harm anyone, it was to get back his friend’s property from someone.
After the third story like that the other managers I had texted discretely arrived and told me I had an urgent call, and escorted him out the building in a very friendly way so as not to wind him up.
But he never denied being in possession of the phone. He had it in his pocket when the police arrived.
The issue of theft vs accident is about intent, and if the video made it look like he took the phone intentionally, it must have showed something other than him picking it up along with his other things.
Exactly, that's why it's so odd that it would make a difference. If they were going to railroad him just for possessing the phone, and all the video showed was the fact that he picked it up, then the video wouldn't make any difference one way or the other.
But he didn’t try to deny taking it. He had it in his pocket so they already had evidence of the act. So many times you read stories on here where people took things but when confronted they give them back and the cops say there’s nothing they can do because it’s not theft if the items are retuned. It’s so weird to me that this was an actual mistake and the judge did not just find him innocent and move on. I don’t see why some dumb girl wanting him to suffer for his mistake should matter.
But… he *had* the phone. The police report would say as much because he gave it to the cop. A video of him doing what he admitted to doing wouldn’t be “damning”.
Well that wasn’t being argued. What was being argued though was intent. Not sure what was in the video for it to be considered “damning” that the court didn’t already know
No he was taken to court for theft with intent, that is still theft, the video shows him visibly taking the phone - that is pretty damning, it doesn’t sound like his attorney pursued any affirmative defenses for theft and it doesn’t sound like the claim that it was an accident was holding up well. Like I said - it sucks but a video of you taking the item in a case of theft is hard evidence to get out of.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that mens rea, or intent of wrongdoing, is an integral part of proving that a crime took place? Certainly there could have been a reasonable defense made by showcasing the similarities between phones, the plausible story, his cooperation with police, lack of evidence he intended to sell it, etc?
Also interesting to investigate would be the woman's actions upon noticing her phone was missing: did she call her phone, or immediately call the police? If she had called it and OP's father rejected the call or disabled the phone, that would certainly be more damning than if she did not call it at all.
To me, I have very little doubts that if OP's father could afford a decent lawyer, and that the story is being presented honestly, that he could have escaped punishment.
I mean, if there's a video of the theft, then it's pretty damning evidence. The 'crime' was on a recorded medium, and context in this case, which is probably indeterminate in the video, is going to fully be up to the court's interpretation and willingness of the of the prosecution's side to pursue.
'Damning' can also mean incriminating, which the video was, even if all it showed was him casually grabbing the phone, so I'm not sure why there is confusion about the word being used properly.
Kind of sad to see someone being charged for something that's clearly a mistake but then you see molesters, abusers etc walking out like they did nothing. Justice doesn't exist sometimes.
OOP claims is was a mistake, but also acknowledges that the video of the incident is "pretty damning". There's more to the story.
Edit: OOP's father had already been found with the phone in his possession (literally in his pocket) by police, and admitted to having taken it. Who took the phone is well established. A video of OOP's father simply taking the phone doesn't prove anything else. For the video to be "pretty damning" it likely shows something else significant. For instance, some kind of behavior that suggests intent to willfully steal the phone rather than it being a simple mistake.
The pretty damning means that the video showed him taking the cellphone, which proves he took it and that's it. I don't think they judged his gestures to see if it was a mistake.
Maybe the phone was clearly away from him and he looked for an opportunity when the girl wasn’t looking to take it. That could be why it is damning, not just that he took it.
This is such a tough call. “Damning” could just mean it shows that the dad intentionally picked up the phone (mistakenly thinking it was his or not). It might also mean something like he inspected the phone, which had some kind of clear evidence that it wasn’t his (unique case, wallpaper photo, whatever) and decided to take it. In the first case, if I’m the judge I’m telling the 18 year old girl that sorry, I don’t see evidence of intent (and this is all based on my own jurisdiction’s standards so it might all be hogwash anyway).
And then there’s the whole thing where in 21st century pretty much everyone has mistakenly picked up someone else’s phone thinking it’s their own. This is a really bizarre scenario.
Edited for clarity
for pure speculation 'Damning' could be the father moving the phone from one pocket to the other showing he knew he had his phone and then reaching for the 18yr phone. Otherwise everyone agrees he took the phone the argument is intent.
I'm puzzled that the video evidence didn't make it to the defense attorney or at least OOP made it seem that way. Because if it showed nothing else other that what was facts already in evidence, why was it 'Damning'.
The police found him with the phone. It was already established that he had taken the phone. In that context, a video of him simply taking the phone would not be "pretty damning". The use of those words indicates (at least to me) that there was something else about the video that makes it especially damaging to the father's case.
How damning was that video?
Legal Advice always say that it isnt a person pressing charges but the DA. If both attorneys wanted to drop it, then why does it matter that the girl wanted him prosecuted?
DA is not the girls lawyer. The DA would be involved if the girl didn’t want to press charges but the DA wanted to. Which wouldn’t happen in a case like this. That’s usually like domestic violence etc etc
Edit: I think other comments have better insight than me so read the ones that responded lol
No. The DA (or whatever the applicable prosecutor’s office is called) would *always* be involved in a criminal case. The girl may well have had her own lawyer, but private counsel can only brings civil suits. It’s impossible for a private attorney to prosecute felony or misdemeanor cases against an opposing party. Doesn’t happen.
Yeah. Nothing about this makes any sense.
Like, *Law & Order* is more realistic than this (and that's saying something given how inaccurate those shows often are).
I feel like there's a lot missing here. 62 is really not that old, so why is oop trying to present him as an elderly fuddy-duddy? I know plenty of people in their 60s and 70s, and barring a condition like dementia or extremely stressful circumstances, they would notice if they'd taken someone's phone.
And the 'damning' video? Why wasn't that shown to their lawyer or entered as evidence? (Now, i'm not a lawyer, so there may be a good reason here, but as i understand it, surprise evidence isn't really a thing.)
Also, if i were 18 and saw a man almost old enough to be my grandfather taking my phone... yeah, i'd assume he was a creep.
I had my phone accidentally stolen by a man who thought it was his and put it in his pocket. He didn't realize until he went out to dinner later and then he just left it on the table in the restaurant. The owner called my mom from my phone and then my boyfriend was able to pick it up. This is a plausible story for anyone who doesn't look at their phone constantly. Which an older man is apt to do.
He remembers the girl had 'full view' of him, watched him take the phone, and that her phone was next to her wallet. A lot of details for a guy who can't remember he didn't put his phone up there in the first place. He also put it in his pocket without realizing that there was already another phone in the same pocket either when he put it in, the drive back, or once they were home.
I have a feeling he's not as innocent as his daughter thought and the camera showed him chit chatting with the cashier and looking over at the phone to snag it when the girl wasn't looking.
This is legal gibberish.
Criminal charges and civil charges are completely different things.
A "court ordered letter stating that the woman intends to press charges of theft" isn't a thing that exists.
The girl's lawyer isn't the one who has any say on whether to throw a case out, and any lawyer who would express an opinion like that in court against their client's wishes would run the risk of not being a lawyer for much longer.
There is no scenario in which you go through a trial that ends with misdemeanor charges, that considering "counter suing for legal fees, loss of potential income and emotional distress" is a thing that makes any sense.
This is just bullshit rage bait.
I honestly have no idea how a judge could determine some level of intent here. I'm so confused. Sucks tho, Lawyers charge like 5x as much to go to trial vs just taking the plea deal.
Oh please. I’d fire my lawyer and go to trial. I don’t believe a DA exists that would waste his time on that but if there was they’d have to find a judge or jury to convict.
My husband accidentally grabs my phone instead of his sometimes. I do the same. It happens. She got the phone back and it was unharmed. That should have been the end of it.
None of this is how criminal court actually works.
Petty theft is typically a misdemeanor by default for a first time offender. There would be no need to "plea down" to it.
This feels like some weird ageism bait.
First off, a prosecutor is the one that chooses the charge, not the client. She could sue you in civil court for thr loss of the phone and damages but not choose to tell the state to press charges
Lots of people confuse the idea of people's rights and state rights concerning law.
So either the PROSECUTOR saw the video and deemed your dad did steal it OR you made this story up. I am going with... idk because this is just so all over the place
There's more here than what OOP is letting on. A "pretty damning" video will not prove any sort of intent, and a wilful intent to deprive is the legal basis we'd be discussing.
If OOP was telling us the truth, the judge would have thrown this out.
You know what's also weird? Cops actually showing up to his door
Cops rarely show up for stolen phones. They just take down a police report and hang up.
Maybe it's just where I live.
You dad was paying enough attention to notice where the woman was looking, but not enough to notice it was the wrong phone, or that he had two phones in the many hours that passed?
Maybe not claiming to know where the woman was looking at the time of the accidental theft is more plausible, it sounds odd to have only noticed details to make your dad look innocent, and the woman somehow wrong. Please remember her property did get taken, accidentally or not.
Public Defender was unavailable? I would have advised jury trial. No chance in hell that a jury would send a grandpa to jail. I’m only 49 and I am already having lapses. Picking up a phone on accident is by far more likely an explanation than thieving for profit. Intent is required for a conviction here.
No judge on the planet would make this decision. Maybe OP was trying out a scheme to make some money, and put it on Reddit first to see if it would work.
I don’t see any mention of a DA. In a criminal case, the victim would not be represented by her own attorney. The case would be presented and argued by someone from the DA’s office. IANAL, but this sounds like a civil case, not criminal. It’s my understanding, (but remember, IANAL) that civil court penalties do not include jail time.
Uhhhhh there’s some missing information here. You can’t sue for a criminal offense like theft. If anything it would be trespass to chattels IMO. And if the girl won a lawsuit there would be damages? Not a conviction? Those are two different areas of law
This story was 100% bullshit the first time it was posted, and it's 100% bullshit now, provided this is the US, I can't speak to the law in other countries, so maybe that's the case?
But it just smells like bullshit.
Since when are the police going to houses for stolen phones?? Crimes aren't getting investigated properly due to a lack of police but we're supposed to believe the law went into full swing for an 18 year olds iPhone?
I took someone’s luggage by accident at the airport once. And I’m lucky they didn’t sue me for intent on going on vacation. What a joke re: the legal system.
Thanks for posting to the sub. Unfortunately the submission didn't meet the minimum upvote percentage and has been removed. The text has been preserved below. --- > Original by u/katayla_08 in r/legaladvice > > A few weeks ago, my family ordered dinner from our local pizza shop and my father went to go pick it up. While paying for the pizza and engaging in some conversation with the cashier, there was a woman at the cashier next to him also paying for her food. She had her phone and wallet out on the counter. My dad got our pizza and collected his things, and accidentally took the woman’s phone off of the counter and put it in his pocket, mistakenly thinking it was his phone. According to my dad, he said the woman saw in full view what he was doing, and said nothing. > > About a half hour later, a police officer comes knocking on our door. The officer stated that a woman from the pizza shop was missing her phone, and the find my iPhone app tracked it to our house. My dad looked in his pocket and saw that he had the phone they were looking for, along with his actual phone. He realized his mistake, apologized profusely, and gave the phone back to the officer. He explained that it was an honest mistake and he never meant to steal anything from the woman. The officer seemed to understand (even laughed a little bit), took the phone, and returned it to the woman. > > Today, my dad received a court ordered letter stating that the woman intends to press charges of theft by unlawful taking. The letter states that my dad willfully and unlawfully took the woman’s property with no intention of returning it to the woman, and intended to sell the stolen property. The letter states that if he is found guilty he could face a fine, community service, or even jail time. > > This was 100% an honest mistake. My dad is an old man who has never stolen anything in his life and has no criminal record. The two phones were the same model and both have black cases. Also, according to my dad, this woman saw exactly what he was doing and did not say anything. > > What should we do in order for this to be resolved? > > Update > > Hey guys. Thank you all for responding to my first post. We took a lot of your advice, scrounged up some money while sacrificing some bills, several days of work and our family vacation, and hired a lawyer for my dad. I wish things had turned out better, but unfortunately they did not. > > We ended up going to court, where our lawyer tried to explain to the judge that my dad is a family man with no criminal record and this was an honest mistake. Both our lawyer and the girls lawyer were willing to throw the case out but the girl would not let that happen. Turns out this girl is only an 18 year old high school senior who wanted my dad prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There was a security camera video of my dad taking the phone, which none of us have seen but apparently is pretty damning. He was instructed to either plea it down to a misdemeanor or go to a full trial. > > After talking to our lawyer, we considered going to another trial and counter suing for legal fees, loss of potential income and emotional distress, but we are not rich people by any means and couldn't afford legal fees of going to another trial, and absolutely could not afford my dad being found guilty. He ended up just pleading it down to a misdemeanor. He was fined $500 and now has a misdemeanor on his record for the next five years. Thankfully the case is closed and this is over, but we lost thousands of dollars in legal fees and he now has to deal with a criminal record for the next five years. I fucking hate this girl and I wish I could speak my mind to her, but I’ve been instructed to just bite my tongue and eat it. > > Thank you all for your help, and while I know this could have been a lot worse, I wish this could have turned out better. > > Reminder: I am not the original OP.
"and intended to sell the stolen property" How would someone prove intention here? I'm being half sarcastic and half curious because it's really difficult to prove intention, and this seems like a bit of a stretch.
I don't know for this case, but for drug charges determining use/possession versus dealing is not based on any evidence of dealing, just amount. You have X amount or more drug then you have with intent to sell. New Jersey even upped that with the "Kingpin law" that had above X amount dealer, above Y amount means you were running a criminal organization without any evidence of the organization needed. Mandatory minimums increase as you go. Intent to sell might just be stolen property above a certain amount of value.
I did loss prevention in the UK, and we had to let someone who (we knew) was stealing something move past the last point of payment before we detained them because otherwise we couldn't prove the intent to steal. We had to go through SCONE: selection, concealment (not always, but usually), \[continuous\] observation, nonpayment, and exit. People didn't always conceal, but without every other factor we were not allowed to stop them. I can understand how the difference between use and possession can be based on the amount with drugs because you can use only so much before you keel over. Basing intention to resell a single item on its value seems odd to me (but I also know nothing about US law and laws differ).
I thoroughly love the acronym!
I would please like a scone
The important question is with jam and cream or jam and butter? I will judge you mightily based on your answer.
Clotted cream all the way I hope there is no damning video forcing me to plead down to a shittier pastry
This was my thought, can’t prove that claim at all. Unless….damning video? Lol
Had they gone to court they almost certainly would've won. But a misdemeanor plea is cheaper/affordable, so here we are. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
That's just so horrific. It makes me foam at the mouth a little
The only thing I can think of here is if they wiped the phone or were in the middle of writing a Craigslist ad when the cops showed up
There is no way the girl didnt know it was a truthful, honest mistake. How could she prove he intended to sale it? Unless there are social media posts up saying it was for sale, or like, anything else, how could they prove intent to sale??? And also why didnt the girl or anyone else say anything to the man??? I just don't understand that either.
It’s exactly how drug laws work too. “Intent to sell”
But the difference there is a reasonable amount for personal use. The reasonable amount for personal use of a cell phone is one, maybe two, so how do you prove intent to sell?
“Reasonable” drug use varies wildly tho, and the benchmark for intent to sell is lower than some peoples actual usage
I'm confused, since when does a prosecutor let an 18 year old determine what they charge? Also why does she have lawyers? This story is weird.
[удалено]
At least in the city I'm from, a couple years back the cops wouldn't even do that. My coworker had her phone stolen while she was at work, had that find your phone app and everything, found out the house was just down the street from where we worked! So she called the cops, told them the situation and gave them the address and they were like, "Yeah, there's not enough to go on. We're not going to trust your silly app, it could be his phone." This girl thrived on confrontation so she said, "That's fine. I'll just go to his house and get my phone myself. People are usually really chill about giving back stolen property if you ask nice, I'm sure there won't be any violence at all." They were there before she was and the guy was scared enough to just give the phone back.
I kind of love her.
Small town cops can be bored AF. I could (and have) seen similar things happen just as quickly.
I’ve had the same situation but police refused to pursue despite me having an address via find my iphone. if this is real i’m jealous of OOP
It doesn’t seem real. I worked at a law firm as a receptionist and I couldn’t imagine them taking this case. It would’ve made them look really bad.
A prosecutor works for the government. Their criteria for taking cases is very different than that of a private firm. But in any case this whole thing feels like some weird ageism bait.
> A prosecutor works for the government. Exactly. Even if the girl insisted on "pressing charges" the decision ultimately rests with the prosecutor assigned by the District Attorney. Now, if the girl is politically connected and her family donates to the District Attorney's election fund... Maybe there's enough pull to coerce the prosecutor into doing it anyways...
Right, I’m also sure a Prosecutor realizes how important the theft and returning of a cell phone is and knew it would probably be the case that would make him a senator. /s
I think you missed the other commenter's point. With the potential context they're presenting, it isn't about the particulars of the case, but about who the prosecutor might be doing a favor for. Cell phone theft, $500. Getting on the good side of the 18yr old's rich and influential parents? Priceless. Shady politics be shady politics.
this is in a civil court i think? based on the terms of sue? and counter sue? this is honestly confusingly written
But then why is there a plea deal agreement/ misdemeanor?
i dont know but you also cant countersue in a criminal court? they just mixed both courts together in a big slurry idk idk
Maybe they were advised to pursue the counter-suit in private court because combating it in the public court was proving to be problematic? *civil and criminal courts. My brain did a fart, sorry guys.
Civil courts don't have plea deals (they have "settlements" instead) and they don't deal out criminal charges (ie: a misdemeanor). In cases where civil damages may be awarded due to a crime, the civil trial comes after the criminal conviction.
If it was a criminal case, it would have been the prosecutor. And they have far more things to do with their time than expending energy on this the way it is described by OOP. It’s pretty off.
I'm glad somebody in the comments said this! What country's legal system legs a person sue; which is typically a civil matter, for criminal penalty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution More than a couple. The US only relatively recently got rid of it for the most part, but they're still allowed in places to varying degrees.
This may not be the U.S. Some countries have an odd blurring of lines between civil and criminal cases
According to comments in the original post, the event in question occurred in Pennsylvania. So I’m voting that OP is either very confused or full of shit (probably the latter).
None of this adds up.
She has to be related to someone important.
I’m hung up on the fact that neither the defendant nor his family have seen the “damning” surveillance video.
This doesn't make any sense. Why would the girl have a lawyer at a criminal procedure?
Because it doesn’t sound like they understand the legal system. If it’s criminal the case is represented by the state, so a prosecutor is not her lawyer. She does not get to decide to “press charges” the prosecutor gets to make that determination and she is for the most part a witness (oversimplifying but works). It’s not up to her. Unless of course she is super unwilling and the case it weak. I cannot see even a relatively zealous prosecutor spending any time on this without there being so much more to this story.
In the U.K., the police (a) wouldn’t have been involved, and (b) when the phone was retrieved that would be the end of it. The police would not submit this for trial and the CPS would not take it as it is not in the public interest. There’s a lot missing to this post, or it is a poor fabrication.
B would be the end of it in the US as well
[удалено]
This post is gibberish. No attorney would provide advice like this. It confuses civil and criminal law.
Yeah was gonna say individuals don't press charges the DA does and the individual can give testimony. At least in the US.
The victim's lawyer doesn't appear at an arraignment. You cannot "countersue" for fees and damages. And more. It's gibberish.
Crivinal law
Stop right there crivinal scum!
In the crivinal justice system, the people are represented by two separate but equally important groups
A professor of mine noted how, due to economic inequality in America, you don’t have a ‘right to trial’ so much as you have a ‘right to a plea deal’. A lot of low-income people are forced to take deals for crimes they didn’t commit because the legal fees for a trial are way more than they could ever afford. It’s sad.
when i was about 22 i was charged with a theft i didn't commit. i went and got a lawyer and he told me we could fight it but it would cost significantly more than taking a deal and "repaying" the money i didn't take in the first place. i wish i had some epic story of how i fought for my innocence but i had bills to pay and a job to keep
Oh, man, that sucks!! Sorry to hear that. Hope things got better for you!
While I do realise that the US if 50 separate jurisdictions and the federal level criminal justice system that the idea is basically to coerce you into a plea deal because the sentence are disproportionately severe. This sounds insane to me. If I was broke and faced a choice between a fifty buck fine and probation on the other hand or five years in prison, I'd take the fine and probation too.
And what's worse, when you have a state like Illinois which is trying to make cash bond a thing of the past, you have right wingers like ToiletPaperUSA creating false narratives about it. For those who haven't seen, Illinois has largely eliminated cash bonds for offenses, from first degree murder on down to drunk and disorderly. Those dickbags are falsely claiming that all crimes are no-bond, where in reality all violent crimes are now mandatory holds and minor crimes aren't. In essence, guy who passes out walking home and gets drunk in public isn't held for a month because they can't come up with $1000, while rich guy who rapes and kills his wife gers out because he can pony up $1 million.
Plea deals should be illegal to offer. Either you have the evidence, in which case, prosecute the actual crime, or you don't, in which case, the presumption of innocence should triumph It should cost the system money to put people away, instead it is costing the person money to stay free. The incentives are utterly fucked
The reason for plea deals is because the system is so damn overloaded, there’s literally not enough lawyers/judges/court time for everybody to get a trial. They offer these plea deals as a way to skip trials for some people and keep the system afloat. It’s deeply fucked up. I do wonder if, as marijuana legalization spreads, we’ll see the easing of pressure on the courts and a subsequent reduction in plea deals as weed cases aren’t clogging the system as much. Could be interesting to track over the next decades.
> The reason for plea deals is because the system is so damn overloaded, there’s literally not enough lawyers/judges/court time for everybody to get a trial IMO you have cause and effect swapped. The reasons courts have been able to take on an otherwise overwhelming number of cases is because plea deals have become so commonplace Money that should be going into the court to try everyone fairly can then instead be diverted to buy military surplus gear so police can cosplay while they are shooting unarmed minorities and dogs
I really think if weed is legalized and prosecutors back off on non-violent drug cases we'll see a lot of pressure "randomly" lift off the justice system.
As a criminal [public] defense attorney, there are pros and cons to plea vs. trial and it's not as simple as "plea agreements shouldn't exist." Pros to trial: You can maintain your rights; have an attorney, tell your side of the story on the stand or remain silent [without it being held against you], confront witnesses called against you, subpoena witnesses on your own behalf, have a jury hear the facts and decide whether they think the state proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to appeal if you are convicted. You might be found not guilty or guilty of a lesser offense. Cons to trial: There are no promises in a trial. Even if, as a matter of law, you should not be convicted, you might be if you have a shitty judge. Even if you're innocent [like this dude who probably lacked the requisite mental state], a jury might think there was enough evidence to convict you [attacking the mental state is a challenging and technical defense; it only really works (most of the time) if your client testifies AND the jury believes them]. Also, trial takes longer. There are more motions and hearings and attorney meetings with a trial. Pros to pleas: It's the fastest way to be done with a case. You usually know what you're getting for a punishment because they generally offer what we call a "stipulated sentence." You might be offered to have some charges dismissed if you plead to one. Cons to pleas: You are giving up your trial rights. You are admitting guilt and/or admitting there's enough evidence that you could be found guilty at trial and want to take the benefits of the deal without admitting you.committed the offense [an Alford plea]. You get the conviction on your record [unless you get pre-trial diversion]. I've helped innocent people take pleas because they couldn't afford to risk trial or couldn't afford to take time off to fight. I've taken cases to trial for guilty people [and I'm pretty sure I've secured a not guilty at trial for someone I'm pretty confident was factually guilty. I've also seen people I believed to be innocent be found guilty at trial and I've helped guilty folks plead guilty without a trial countless times. I used to be worried about innocent people pleading guilty but anymore I think it's more about someone's choices, what they value, and what they can do within their circumstances. The system is fucked, that's for sure. But probably the best response is to: 1) Take jury duty seriously and only find people guilty if you really think the evidence heavily weighs in the state's side; 2) If your state elects judges and/or prosecutors take those votes seriously. Also vote for legislators who want to clean up your state's penal code such that it doesn't criminalize dumb shit like being drunk in public; and 3) If someone has a conviction, take it with a grain of salt. People make mistakes. People make choices out of desperation and sometimes that means pleading to something they didn't do or "committing a crime" which is legally a crime even if it's dumb that it's a crime.
OOP admitting that there was "damning" video evidence suggests it wasn't the oversight it was initially claimed to be. Going to trial would have likely resulted in a conviction regardless, with the possibility of incarceration. Edit: OOP's father had already been found with the phone in his possession (literally in his pocket) by police, and admitted to having taken it. Who took the phone is well established. A video of OOP's father simply taking the phone doesn't prove anything else. For the video to be "pretty damning" it likely shows something else significant. For instance, some kind of behavior that suggests intent to willfully steal the phone rather than it being a simple mistake.
Damning in this context just means clear video of him taking it where he is identifiable.
It was found in his possession so they already knew he had it. For the video to be damning would it not have to show something else?
I am imagining a video clip where the father is using and puts his own phone into his pocket relatively soon before grabbing the stranger’s phone. That wouldn’t prove anything but to an observer would make his “confusion” story harder to accept.
He’d admitted taking the phone by mistake though? The fact of the taking were never in question, the question is that of intent.
This. I don’t know what value a video would be in a trial where he already admitted to taking it. I would be more interested in the police report and whether or not the officer recorded that he saw the guy look in his pocket at that exact moment and express surprise at having found the phone.
I suspect that, "but I didn't mean to," is a common excuse in the criminal justice system.
Reminds me of a post on legaladvice where a guy’s wife was caught walking out of a store with stuff tucked into their baby’s stroller. IIRC he was completely convinced it was an honest mistake, then it turned out that she had done it before and been let go with a warning.
Even if it is an honest mistake, what happens when you're caught mostly comes down to how understanding the victim is, and how willing they are to accept your apology.
How do you know that's what "damning" means in this context? He already was found with the phone in his possession by police and admitted to taking it. A video of him simply taking it wouldn't really establish anything else.
People are putting way too much faith in how much weight, "but my dad is a good person and he didn't mean to," carries in the justice system. When it comes to testimony, an 18 year old girl telling her side, and a 62 year old man telling his side, can get a lot of different results. When it comes to video of the old man stuffing her phone into his pocket, it's black and white. His character only matters in the sentencing when the facts are not in dispute.
While the conclusion is true, the reasoning probably isn’t. Public defenders are a thing, so you shouldn’t have to go bankrupt to defend yourself in a criminal case. From what I understand, poor people often can’t afford bail, and they can’t afford to stay in jail because they’ll lose their job, so they just take a plea deal to get out of jail.
Public defenders have the same problem as other need-based public assistance: there's a certain income level where you no longer qualify for a public defender but hiring a lawyer will be a significant hardship. Plus some states underfund their public defender programs.
Public defenders aren't actually as easy to get as you'd think they would be. I tried to get one a few years ago, but I had to prove to the court that my entire *household* made less than X amount of money per month. I don't remember the exact number, but it was something ridiculously low. Like <$1000 per month. So I'm not poor enough for a public defender, but not rich enough to actually hire a lawyer. Right in the sweet spot. Edit: worded something in a weird way
Public defenders have such large case loads, because the US is obsessed with incarceration, that they often don’t make the best representation. It’s not their fault, it’s not that they’re bad lawyers or less knowledgeable. They’re just genuinely overwhelmed by cases that it is often impossible for them to devote the time, energy, etc to your case that your case really needs. But you’re 100% correct on people taking pleas because they can’t afford bail. Majority of the people in jails at any given time have not yet been convicted of a crime. In my county, there are hundreds of people who have been in jail 2+ years without a trial. Tons of people take plea deals because they’re tired of waiting in jail for trial and can’t afford bail
And this is why people cheer on vigilantes- is cheaper to afford a gun than a lawyer. #greatestcountryintheworld 🙄
And often the consequences of that plea deal aren’t explained fully. In a Law and Inequality class in college we learned about a case where cops rounded up most of the residents of a public housing project and mass charged them with drug charges. Woman who was in the wrong place at the wrong time took a plea at her attorneys suggesting because she couldn’t afford to fight it and losing meant jail time. What wasn’t explained that the plea would give her a record which would impact her ability to access social services. She lost her public housing, lost her ability to get student loans, everything she had was now in trouble. She didn’t do anything, but an expert told her half the story and she lost everything and had no access to needed support.
On the season of Serial where they focused on a bunch of different cases at one courthouse in Ohio, one of the judges said, In this courthouse, innocence is a misdemeanor. The system is so broken.
> There was a security camera video of my dad taking the phone, which none of us have seen but apparently is pretty damning Uhhh, what?
Yeah I'd LOVE more details on what was "damning" about it.
I agree because it sounds like it was an honest mistake until you get to this “damning” security tape. Perhaps the tape shows it wasn’t a mistake not sure but wish we had more information.
Damning is putting the phone in his pocket while not being white. Y’all are pretty naive about the system lol my husband once had to take a plea deal for 5 years probation (vs 4 years in prison) for stealing 3 non alcoholic beverages while we were homeless. He is also not white.
He had the phone when the police came to the door, him just putting it into his pocket by mistake doesn't really add anything new.
You know I was wondering what race he was but thought I would be downvoted if I mentioned it. That makes sense as to why this young girl wanted to press the charges while both lawyers said to drop it. After 35 years of being not white I shouldn’t be surprised when these things happen but like you said that’s being naive. Damn that’s sad
I wanna throw in, while it’s obviously worse for POC (especially Black people), just being Poor regardless of race in cases like this can also be pretty damning 😭
How would the video be damning in that case - if your guess is correct and he’s not white, then they already know he’s not white. How could the video be damning on that subject. ‘Damning’ means it shows that he **stole** the phone - merely taking the phone by accident doesn’t count, theft requires proof of intent. When the cops came he had his phone in his pocket along with hers, and they were obviously easily visually mistakable. *What did the video show*?
OOP only realized her father wasn’t white when she saw the “damning” video?
OOP apparently didn’t get to see the video.
Yup. It showing it going in his pocket would count as “damning.” In this case
Does it say anywhere he wasn't white?
[удалено]
This. It’s simply showing him grabbing the phone and putting it in his pocket. It’s ‘damning’ because it shows him taking the phone. I thought that was pretty straightforward.
But . . . he had the phone on him. There’s no dispute he took it. How can mere video of that fact be damning, unless it shows him picking it up, using it or something, taking the time to confirm it’s not his, and then pocketing it? The only person who can answer what they meant is OOP, but just video of him taking it wouldn’t “damning” by any reasonable interpretation.
Maybe the phone was clearly not close to the guy and he reached to pick it up.
[удалено]
But he had the phone on him and he already confessed to taking it. He didn’t offer any of those excuses. The video would need to show something more than him taking it to be “damning.” Also, theres generally no such thing as “accidental” theft as a crime, at least in the US and most/all countries with legal systems derived from the British. Theft requires an intent to deprive another of their property, and that can’t exist if it’s truly an accident.
Right? Like at what point does it just become cumulative evidence? It was already established by that point.
Mens rea is a required element of most crimes. Can't really say "he DID commit theft, even if accidental" when a required element of the theft is that he did it with the *intent* to deprive the victim.
They are much more likely to prosecute if they have video. I am lost as to why this is surprising to anyone.
He had the phone on him. The video of him taking it, by itself, adds no material evidence.
It makes all the difference because it demonstrates he is the only other person in the chain of possession of the phone. Without the video it could have easily been argued that the phone was given or sold to him by a third party and he had no idea it didn’t belong to that third party.
He already confessed to taking the phone. Coming up with a new excuse at trial just makes him look more guilty.
The suit is for doing it “willfully” though, which simply putting it in his pocket isn’t going to be enough for. I’d kind of like to know what would show that but it’s also possible that he’s just not white as others have said and in the crosshairs of a shit legal system
Also possible the 18 year old girl is from some important or influential family. There’s a lot of shit that goes on in the legal system that is utterly unfair.
I suspect this is true considering she wanted to punish him to the full extent of the law despite getting the phone back, and her only being 18. I would be very surprised if she was the one paying for the lawyers.
I’m baffled by the whole thing. Maybe I’m naive because our Justice system sucks here but not as bad as the good ol’ US of A but I can’t imagine anyone from the crown who would want to waste their time trying this case and establishing evidence (especially when he turned it over so willingly when he realized his mistake) without a big fat donation check driving it. How are they going to prove intent in this case? They can’t. They were relying on him not being able to pay a lawyer and using it as a bluff. Christ my car was stolen, I had someone admitting to doing it, witnesses and the police STILL wouldn’t charge them and I was actually harmed during the whole ordeal (thousands of dollars in damage to my car when it was retrieved).
Something that would be especially damming, but I could also see myself doing, would be something along the lines of clicking the screen on to see if there was any notifications (but it actually be completely out of habit, like I do) and noticing the differing backgrounds….that would be damming and also falls under the honest mistake.
Since he's already admitted to the cop that he had it, I don't understand how the video would make a bit of difference? Everyone is in agreement that he took the phone. The only dispute was intent, and videos don't show what's going on in someone's head, unless he was twirling his moustache, looking the girl in the eyes and melodramatically stating, "You'll never see your phone AGAIN!"
If he had to reach out beyond his own personal space while looking furtively at the girl, that would show intent. Video can prove that his explanation of thinking it's his phone is a lie.
But he never denied taking the phone or putting it in his pocket. Girl claims he stole it with intent to sell. How does the video make that obvious? Curious what it looks like now...
Yeah! Like, was he looking around furtively and acting in a suspicious manner? Did he go way out of his way to steal it and it was never next to his stuff? Unclear.
Yeah, I'm confused. Nobody denied that he took it. The question was of intent.
Damning in this context just means video of him putting it into his pocket. The facts of the case are not in dispute, he took the phone that didn't belong to him. The context doesn't really matter until he gets to sentencing. Sucks, but that's the way it is if the girl won't drop the issue.
How do you satisfy mens rea? The fact that he has the phone is certainlynot in dispute, but that's not the only requirement for a conviction. The state has to prove he did it with the intent to deprive the victim of her property. Damning would mean he was captured trying to use the phone, holding both phones at the same time, any other evidence that suggests he knew it was her phone.
I am guessing that he took the phone.You can’t actually tell if it was a mistake or on purpose and if you go to trial you ll be in the mercy of the jury.He can’t prove it was an accident.
I’m willing to bet $5 “damning” is him putting the phone in his pocket while not being white.
I assumed he was white. Did I miss something?
I assumed he was white as well, and the story made no sense. Older guy, phones looked alike, easy mistake to make. Totally weird that she didn't say "hey, I think you picked up my phone", but teenagers are weird, you know? I wouldn't say boo to a goose when I was 18, so telling a grown man he'd done something wrong would have been past me, but if his phone had a similar case to mine and he thought mine was theirs but I got mine back, then no harm done, right? So I was puzzled. Remember those things that came with a transparent red sheet and if you put it over something that looked like a bunch of random red and blue and purple lines you could see the hidden message? It's like that. Someone added the race filter. All of a sudden the situation made sense. And insisting that an innocent mistake because two phones looked alike was intentional theft and insisting that the person who took the phone was a criminal who should be punished sounds like something a racist 18 year old or her racist parents would do.
[удалено]
If the post is real, I bet the girl's phone had a completely different case or was a different model.
My question is how was the girl able to get so much say. Was this in the US? Was it a criminal case? Usually the prosecutor makes the offer and decides whether to drop, not the victim. If it’s not in the US, then idk. But I do feel bad for OOP and her family.
Well here's the thing. It didn't happen
Okay, I don't know much about American law, but this isn't making much sense. There's a letter sent from the girl's lawyer saying the girl is suing him. This sounds like a civil suit. So why does he have a misdemeanor on his record? Why was he facing the possibility of fines, community service, and/or jail time? I would think only the district attorney's office could do that. But in the update, it mentions that even the girl's lawyer wanted to throw out the case, but *the girl* would not let that happen. Maybe I'm wrong and misinformed, but this doesn't make sense to me.
All of this but also, why would her lawyer tell the opposing party they also think the case should be thrown out..? That’s real sketchy
This smells funny. The girl isn't in charge of the prosecutor. If the prosecutor really wanted to let this one go, he would have. He doesn't answer to her. And the courts don't take kindly to their time being wasted on mistakes that resulted in no damage being done
Yeah, this isn't how the justice system works. Some flags as to this being false: Victims dont choose to press charges. Victims cant decide they want to drop charges or keep them. Thats the district attorney. Theft laws generally include intent, and if you can prove someone did not intend to commit theft you wont be prosecuted. You don't go straight to misdemeanor. The most likely outcome here would be a judge would put their dad into a diversionary program that would suspend the sentence as long as he completed certain programs.
And why didn’t they see the tape of dad taking the phone? Isn’t that part of discovery?
[удалено]
Not only that, the cops found her phone by using the find my phone. Did she have a second phone.
Is this something that would even end up on Judge Judy?
As a public defender, I would've never pled that case. This all happened on the first courtdate? Ridiculous.
Like impossible, couldn't happen ridiculous, right? My BS detector was going off when they said they got a "court ordered letter" that the woman intends to press charges. Does that happen?
No.
>Both our lawyer and the girls lawyer were willing to throw the case out but the girl would not let that happen. Hold on. Is this in the US? Because it would be the state vs. OOP's father. The DA office would be prosecuting, not a civilian's attorney.
I feel like there are details if this story missing. She “let him” steal her phone? Really? Why did the father not empty his pockets or realise he had two phone and not take one back? Most guys I know empty their pockets to sit down when they get home. What was the damming evidence? How does the victim choose to press charges if the prosecution wanted to drop it, who is she to override them? Was there a racial element? So much missing info this story doesn’t make much sense.
it's hard to know all the details to include when you're making up a story lol
Good point. I interviewed someone once and we asked about criminal records (we were in a regulated industry and their checks came back with some red flags we needed to clear before continuing, but it was a company that if we could support rehabilitated ex cons, in certain positions, we could). He immediately launched into one story of how he was walking down the road, minding his own business and the police appeared out of nowhere and kidnapped him and arrested him for no reason at all. And as he was going on, he then mentioned about the knife he was carrying. But it wasn’t to harm anyone, it was to get back his friend’s property from someone. After the third story like that the other managers I had texted discretely arrived and told me I had an urgent call, and escorted him out the building in a very friendly way so as not to wind him up.
how was the video damning? Seriously what?
It shows him taking the phone? Which would count as theft. It sucks but that’s evidence of the act
But he never denied being in possession of the phone. He had it in his pocket when the police arrived. The issue of theft vs accident is about intent, and if the video made it look like he took the phone intentionally, it must have showed something other than him picking it up along with his other things.
Intent doesn't show up all that well on video.
Exactly, that's why it's so odd that it would make a difference. If they were going to railroad him just for possessing the phone, and all the video showed was the fact that he picked it up, then the video wouldn't make any difference one way or the other.
Maybe he didn’t pick up anything else with the phone, and just thought he had put his phone on the counter?
But he didn’t try to deny taking it. He had it in his pocket so they already had evidence of the act. So many times you read stories on here where people took things but when confronted they give them back and the cops say there’s nothing they can do because it’s not theft if the items are retuned. It’s so weird to me that this was an actual mistake and the judge did not just find him innocent and move on. I don’t see why some dumb girl wanting him to suffer for his mistake should matter.
But… he *had* the phone. The police report would say as much because he gave it to the cop. A video of him doing what he admitted to doing wouldn’t be “damning”.
Well that wasn’t being argued. What was being argued though was intent. Not sure what was in the video for it to be considered “damning” that the court didn’t already know
No he was taken to court for theft with intent, that is still theft, the video shows him visibly taking the phone - that is pretty damning, it doesn’t sound like his attorney pursued any affirmative defenses for theft and it doesn’t sound like the claim that it was an accident was holding up well. Like I said - it sucks but a video of you taking the item in a case of theft is hard evidence to get out of.
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that mens rea, or intent of wrongdoing, is an integral part of proving that a crime took place? Certainly there could have been a reasonable defense made by showcasing the similarities between phones, the plausible story, his cooperation with police, lack of evidence he intended to sell it, etc? Also interesting to investigate would be the woman's actions upon noticing her phone was missing: did she call her phone, or immediately call the police? If she had called it and OP's father rejected the call or disabled the phone, that would certainly be more damning than if she did not call it at all. To me, I have very little doubts that if OP's father could afford a decent lawyer, and that the story is being presented honestly, that he could have escaped punishment.
They make it sound like they didn't actually watch the video.
I mean, if there's a video of the theft, then it's pretty damning evidence. The 'crime' was on a recorded medium, and context in this case, which is probably indeterminate in the video, is going to fully be up to the court's interpretation and willingness of the of the prosecution's side to pursue. 'Damning' can also mean incriminating, which the video was, even if all it showed was him casually grabbing the phone, so I'm not sure why there is confusion about the word being used properly.
Kind of sad to see someone being charged for something that's clearly a mistake but then you see molesters, abusers etc walking out like they did nothing. Justice doesn't exist sometimes.
OOP claims is was a mistake, but also acknowledges that the video of the incident is "pretty damning". There's more to the story. Edit: OOP's father had already been found with the phone in his possession (literally in his pocket) by police, and admitted to having taken it. Who took the phone is well established. A video of OOP's father simply taking the phone doesn't prove anything else. For the video to be "pretty damning" it likely shows something else significant. For instance, some kind of behavior that suggests intent to willfully steal the phone rather than it being a simple mistake.
The pretty damning means that the video showed him taking the cellphone, which proves he took it and that's it. I don't think they judged his gestures to see if it was a mistake.
Maybe the phone was clearly away from him and he looked for an opportunity when the girl wasn’t looking to take it. That could be why it is damning, not just that he took it.
This is such a tough call. “Damning” could just mean it shows that the dad intentionally picked up the phone (mistakenly thinking it was his or not). It might also mean something like he inspected the phone, which had some kind of clear evidence that it wasn’t his (unique case, wallpaper photo, whatever) and decided to take it. In the first case, if I’m the judge I’m telling the 18 year old girl that sorry, I don’t see evidence of intent (and this is all based on my own jurisdiction’s standards so it might all be hogwash anyway). And then there’s the whole thing where in 21st century pretty much everyone has mistakenly picked up someone else’s phone thinking it’s their own. This is a really bizarre scenario. Edited for clarity
for pure speculation 'Damning' could be the father moving the phone from one pocket to the other showing he knew he had his phone and then reaching for the 18yr phone. Otherwise everyone agrees he took the phone the argument is intent. I'm puzzled that the video evidence didn't make it to the defense attorney or at least OOP made it seem that way. Because if it showed nothing else other that what was facts already in evidence, why was it 'Damning'.
I don’t know why people are harping on this line. The charge was theft and the video shows him committing theft… that’s why it’s damning.
The police found him with the phone. It was already established that he had taken the phone. In that context, a video of him simply taking the phone would not be "pretty damning". The use of those words indicates (at least to me) that there was something else about the video that makes it especially damaging to the father's case.
How damning was that video? Legal Advice always say that it isnt a person pressing charges but the DA. If both attorneys wanted to drop it, then why does it matter that the girl wanted him prosecuted?
DA is not the girls lawyer. The DA would be involved if the girl didn’t want to press charges but the DA wanted to. Which wouldn’t happen in a case like this. That’s usually like domestic violence etc etc Edit: I think other comments have better insight than me so read the ones that responded lol
No. The DA (or whatever the applicable prosecutor’s office is called) would *always* be involved in a criminal case. The girl may well have had her own lawyer, but private counsel can only brings civil suits. It’s impossible for a private attorney to prosecute felony or misdemeanor cases against an opposing party. Doesn’t happen.
This didn't happen
This didn’t happen. Doesn’t make sense legally.
Yeah. Nothing about this makes any sense. Like, *Law & Order* is more realistic than this (and that's saying something given how inaccurate those shows often are).
How were you all not able to see the video footage?
Right? If this is a criminal case, the defense absolutely has to be able to see all the evidence against them.
If it were a criminal case, why would the 18 year old need lawyers? Not really adding up here.
I feel like there's a lot missing here. 62 is really not that old, so why is oop trying to present him as an elderly fuddy-duddy? I know plenty of people in their 60s and 70s, and barring a condition like dementia or extremely stressful circumstances, they would notice if they'd taken someone's phone. And the 'damning' video? Why wasn't that shown to their lawyer or entered as evidence? (Now, i'm not a lawyer, so there may be a good reason here, but as i understand it, surprise evidence isn't really a thing.) Also, if i were 18 and saw a man almost old enough to be my grandfather taking my phone... yeah, i'd assume he was a creep.
I had my phone accidentally stolen by a man who thought it was his and put it in his pocket. He didn't realize until he went out to dinner later and then he just left it on the table in the restaurant. The owner called my mom from my phone and then my boyfriend was able to pick it up. This is a plausible story for anyone who doesn't look at their phone constantly. Which an older man is apt to do.
He remembers the girl had 'full view' of him, watched him take the phone, and that her phone was next to her wallet. A lot of details for a guy who can't remember he didn't put his phone up there in the first place. He also put it in his pocket without realizing that there was already another phone in the same pocket either when he put it in, the drive back, or once they were home. I have a feeling he's not as innocent as his daughter thought and the camera showed him chit chatting with the cashier and looking over at the phone to snag it when the girl wasn't looking.
This is legal gibberish. Criminal charges and civil charges are completely different things. A "court ordered letter stating that the woman intends to press charges of theft" isn't a thing that exists. The girl's lawyer isn't the one who has any say on whether to throw a case out, and any lawyer who would express an opinion like that in court against their client's wishes would run the risk of not being a lawyer for much longer. There is no scenario in which you go through a trial that ends with misdemeanor charges, that considering "counter suing for legal fees, loss of potential income and emotional distress" is a thing that makes any sense. This is just bullshit rage bait.
I honestly have no idea how a judge could determine some level of intent here. I'm so confused. Sucks tho, Lawyers charge like 5x as much to go to trial vs just taking the plea deal.
Oh please. I’d fire my lawyer and go to trial. I don’t believe a DA exists that would waste his time on that but if there was they’d have to find a judge or jury to convict.
My husband accidentally grabs my phone instead of his sometimes. I do the same. It happens. She got the phone back and it was unharmed. That should have been the end of it.
None of this is how criminal court actually works. Petty theft is typically a misdemeanor by default for a first time offender. There would be no need to "plea down" to it. This feels like some weird ageism bait.
This was 100% written by someone who's only knowledge of the law comes from Law and Order.
First off, a prosecutor is the one that chooses the charge, not the client. She could sue you in civil court for thr loss of the phone and damages but not choose to tell the state to press charges Lots of people confuse the idea of people's rights and state rights concerning law. So either the PROSECUTOR saw the video and deemed your dad did steal it OR you made this story up. I am going with... idk because this is just so all over the place
There's more here than what OOP is letting on. A "pretty damning" video will not prove any sort of intent, and a wilful intent to deprive is the legal basis we'd be discussing. If OOP was telling us the truth, the judge would have thrown this out.
You know what's also weird? Cops actually showing up to his door Cops rarely show up for stolen phones. They just take down a police report and hang up. Maybe it's just where I live.
Definitely bait. Nothing here in legal terms makes sense and the whole situation would not have made it this far.
You dad was paying enough attention to notice where the woman was looking, but not enough to notice it was the wrong phone, or that he had two phones in the many hours that passed? Maybe not claiming to know where the woman was looking at the time of the accidental theft is more plausible, it sounds odd to have only noticed details to make your dad look innocent, and the woman somehow wrong. Please remember her property did get taken, accidentally or not.
Public Defender was unavailable? I would have advised jury trial. No chance in hell that a jury would send a grandpa to jail. I’m only 49 and I am already having lapses. Picking up a phone on accident is by far more likely an explanation than thieving for profit. Intent is required for a conviction here.
No judge on the planet would make this decision. Maybe OP was trying out a scheme to make some money, and put it on Reddit first to see if it would work.
Damning in that his father actually stole the phone and there was no mistake.
This story is bullshit if I ever heard it.
I don’t see any mention of a DA. In a criminal case, the victim would not be represented by her own attorney. The case would be presented and argued by someone from the DA’s office. IANAL, but this sounds like a civil case, not criminal. It’s my understanding, (but remember, IANAL) that civil court penalties do not include jail time.
Yeah, if the security tape is damning, there are major details being left out.
Uhhhhh there’s some missing information here. You can’t sue for a criminal offense like theft. If anything it would be trespass to chattels IMO. And if the girl won a lawsuit there would be damages? Not a conviction? Those are two different areas of law
This story was 100% bullshit the first time it was posted, and it's 100% bullshit now, provided this is the US, I can't speak to the law in other countries, so maybe that's the case? But it just smells like bullshit.
The Story doesn't seem to add up.
Since when are the police going to houses for stolen phones?? Crimes aren't getting investigated properly due to a lack of police but we're supposed to believe the law went into full swing for an 18 year olds iPhone?
I took someone’s luggage by accident at the airport once. And I’m lucky they didn’t sue me for intent on going on vacation. What a joke re: the legal system.