… and can the police officer who LIED (perjured himself) when saying the sandwich “exploded all over” be privately charged if the court won’t do it themselves?
There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another
It doesn’t say that the victim must be struck with something very likely to injure them. Looking at the statute, it turns out that actual physical contact (rather than making a threat without contact) elevates it to a felony - the charge a grand jury previously rejected.
Of course, prosecutors normally apply common sense to charging decisions and don’t prosecute everything that technically qualifies under the strictest reading of a statute.
I was just wondering if he could sue for malicious prosecution.
… and can the police officer who LIED (perjured himself) when saying the sandwich “exploded all over” be privately charged if the court won’t do it themselves?
Who knows but if he does they should bar the agent and lawyer that brought up the charges from ever bringing charges again on anybody.
He probably can’t. Absurd as it may sound, he was actually guilty.
Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:
It doesn’t say that the victim must be struck with something very likely to injure them. Looking at the statute, it turns out that actual physical contact (rather than making a threat without contact) elevates it to a felony - the charge a grand jury previously rejected.
Of course, prosecutors normally apply common sense to charging decisions and don’t prosecute everything that technically qualifies under the strictest reading of a statute.
Did he literally throw a sandwich? Yes.
Is he guilty of forcible assault by throwing the sandwich? No.
If doing a thing was the same as guilt there wouldn’t be a trial.
I don’t mean to be a pedant here, but he’s not actually guilty. The jury decided that.
No, he sues for damages. Time lost, mental anguish, etc
Sue for delicious prosecution I say