My son and his girlfriend got into an altercation. He was charged with domestic battery and she was not because he didn't go to the police as she did (they have had many arguments in the past that she beat him up but he never turned her in) although she was just as guilty. Anyway after that incident he did not return there because he thought he had a restraining order but none was ever filed or served. Later he was accused of residential entry which he did not do but the judge wouldn't even let him speak on it. Just sent him to sit in jail on lies. He had the electric there in his name and it was his residence until the argument. She never legally evicted him. So my question is did they have a basis to arrest him for residential entry when he had established residence there? Even when he wasn't even there? In this county it's guilty until proven innocent.
You have to understand the difference between two distinct concepts: "probable cause" and "guilt."
The police must have "probable cause" to arrest someone. Probable cause means that there is sufficient evidsence to BELIEVE that a crime MAY have been committed, and that the person who is arrested MAY have committed the crime. Probable cause is a fairly low standard, and it can be based on nothing more than the statements of a witness (like the girlfriend). Even if the witness is lying, unless the police have a reason to believe she is lying, they can act on the witness's statements.
"Guilty" means that a jury (or a judge, in a bench trial) has found that there is sufficient evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (BARD) that the defendant committed the crime with which he was charged. That's a very HIGH standard of proof.
When you hear the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty," it's referring to the latter concept, which can only occur after a trial (unless the defendant admits his guiilt in order to accept a plea agreement).
In the situation you described, it appears that the police and prosecutor determined that there was probable cause to file charges against your son. Now, the State will have to prove BARD, that your son is guilty. If they can't, then he will be acquitted.
I'm licensed to practice law only in Indiana, and we've never met, so I can't give you "legal" advice. My answer is simply "friendly" advice based on my experience as an attorney in Indiana, my knowledge of federal and common law, and common sense. Even if you are in Indiana, employment law questions are very fact specific, and based on the limited information you provided in your post, I can't give you legal advice, and my answer is intended as general information only. It doesn't create an attorney-client relationship.
Most likely your son can bond out, pending his trial. If the bond is too high, he can ask for a reduction. He does need a defense lawyer to help him
Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.What determines Avvo Rating?Experience & background
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline