While the nature of the accusation after JC dictates what happens next (for example. B, a grand jury can verify evidence of crimes), the final decision to prosecute the case rests with the prosecutor. In practice, this means that a victim of a reported crime does not lay charges of „press“ or „drop“ and has little control over the continuation of criminal proceedings. This is often the case of domestic violence when the victim tells the police that she wants to drop the charge. The state may well decide that it is up to the public opinion and the welfare of the victim to prosecute, regardless of the impression the victim feels. Even without the victim`s cooperation and testimony, the state can file a complaint. After the first report has been sent to law enforcement, a survivor can decide whether or not to move the investigation forward, a procedure described as an urgent charge. At the end of the day, the decision to file a complaint rests with the state. It is possible, though unusual, for a prosecutor to move forward with charges based solely on available evidence, even if the survivor chooses not to be involved. I have clients accused of violent crimes, I wonder why the name of the alleged victim is not in the title of the case.

Why is it „State vs. John Doe“ instead of „Victim vs. John Doe“? It is because it is the state, not the alleged victim or any other individual, who is responsible for the urgent denunciation. Victims can agree not to report crimes. Although it is not directly relevant, it is also worth mentioning 2008 FEO 15, which provides that as long as „the agreement does not constitute the offence of aggravation of a criminal offence and is not otherwise illegal and does not contemplate the manufacture, concealment or destruction of evidence, a lawyer may participate in a civil claim settlement agreement containing a non-declaration provision that prohibits it from reporting the defendant`s conduct to law enforcement.“ The notice also reminds lawyers to avoid participating in obstruction of justice and states that lawyers „must also ensure that they are not involved, that the transaction involves the client`s consent to falsely testify or to circumvent a summons to appear in criminal proceedings if, subsequently, no criminal complaint is filed by the authorities. Such conduct is clearly contrary to the prohibitions of Rule 3.4 (a) and (b) to the advice or support of another to destroy or conceal evidence, falsely testify or not serve as a witness. The idea that an alleged victim can provide assistance in a civil transaction favourable to an accused is also reflected in 98 OTF 19 (and states that a victim`s lawyer can argue ethically „e] that [a] ictim [a favorable plea in exchange for an admission from an accused] agrees).