i didn't exit the store , didn't have any merchandise concealed , explained my situation and offered to pay for the merchandise 3 or 4 times . , then was taken to jail and not given a phone call for 4 hours , was not told of the procedure aft...
Your question is much more complicated than it seems. The most likely scenario you need to address is what the store employees did. It is likely, though not assured, that any recovery you are entitled is from the action of the store employees.
But I might read your question to address how to defend your case against the criminal charges. First and most importantly, you don't have to prove anything. The government must prove that you committed a crime, the government has the burden of proof and must present evidence to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. More people need to fight back against the police for accepting the flimsy statements of proof from the corporate security folks that someone actually committed a crime and do an actual investigation before a person is arrested.
Fight back against the charges and against the corporate security folks if they laid hands on you without good cause.See question
This is in Kentucky by the way . I have 4 witnesses on my behalf , pictures to prove where I was , people to testify where I was and documentation to prove as well . The prosecution has a state trooper that don't know what or who he saw and ha...
While I am not licensed to practice in Kentucky, your question is frequently asked in my home state. I practice in Lebanon, Tennessee.
It is helpful to understand that in civil law most states and the federal court system frequently employ the use of a summary judgment motion. This motion allows either side to put forth their evidence and allege that there are no genuine issues of material facts in this case and therefore there side should be declared the winner, if the other side does not put forth facts to contest their position. In criminal law, there is no such counter part in law. The State cannot contend that they should win without a trial as you have a constitutional right to the same. Conversely you cannot allege prior to trial that the state doesn't have sufficient proof to put you to trial to find out what a jury would say. Generally, the issue of whether there is sufficient proof is resolved by the Grand Jury issuing a true bill, or an indictment. In criminal law this is the determination that there is sufficient proof to send a case to trial in most states and the Federal system. In states without a grand jury system, the prosecutor issues an information, and he (your adversary) determines if there is sufficient proof to carry the case to trial. For this reason, a Grand Jury is one of the most important tools to safe guard citizens from an abusive government, as it can take the decision to put a citizen to trial, away from the government and leave it in the hands of the citizens who make up the Grand Jury.
In short, your answer is to demand a trial sooner, rather than later, if you truly want the case to be at an end. As an aside, although horribly overworked and understaffed, public defenders are real lawyers with your best interest at heart.See question