Question about charges later on

I had a question on whether you can get charge for a crime the cop didn't see you perform? As if a provider gets busted later, can she give up your name and then can you get in trouble? What if you were spotted even with the provider, would that change things?
Thanks in advance!

I had a question on whether you can get charge for a crime the cop didn't see you perform? Originally Posted by interrobang

Of course. Most criminal charges are based on evidence that has nothing to do with the arresting officer's perceptions.

As if a provider gets busted later, can she give up your name and then can you get in trouble? Originally Posted by interrobang

Of course.

What if you were spotted even with the provider, would that change things? Originally Posted by interrobang

I don't know what you mean by "change things." Obviously, a man charged with prostitution would face a stronger state's case if a witness saw him with a prostitute.

Thanks for your reply!

And by change things, I meant that would it make the case worse.

Answer to your question is technically YES, but practically speaking NO.

Bob Hobby agrees in writing to pay Jane Provider for sex. He writes a check and notates its with "blow job and sex." Later, Jane Provider is arrested and agrees to cooperate with LE to help identify targets (children, johns, the trafficked, whoever) in exchange for dropped or reduced charges. On that fantastic hypothetical, Bob Hobby's exposure is real. And YES, her affidavits, the check and other pictures, docs, eyewitness statements, etc can and will be used against the John.

In reality the hypothetical above rarely happens that way, and its rarer still that providers are "turned" into state witnesses. Luckily for Bob Hobby, most providers hate cops (that are not clients) more than they fear creeps. Providers making self incriminating statements, to cops, for the purpose of getting Bob Hobby arrested extremely rare but not impossible nor hard to fathom either.

19Trees

19Trees: The hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with a provider testifying, or anything produced by a provider possibly being used as evidence.

19Trees: The hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with a provider testifying, or anything produced by a provider possibly being used as evidence. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I'm guessing (seriously guessing because I had a hard tie following 19Trees' hypothetical) that the real question/answer is:

If a hooker is busted and makes a deal to testify and she says John Hobby paid her $200 for BBBJ and CFS, does that "make the case worse?"

The answer is...YES (IMHO)

If a reputable witness sees the accused with the known prostitute, does that also "make the case worse?"

The answer again is ... YES

(Wherein "make the case worse" equates to the accused is more liking to be convicted)

Did I get that right?

I'm not a lawyer but I did get head in the parking lot of a motel 6 so here's my take.

In the absense of a sting ie: you show up, offer money for sexual acts and they bust you red handed. There would be little chance of prosecution. In the scenario given a hooker identifies you as a john after the fact. If the only evidence is her word saying you paid to have sex with her I really doubt anything would be done. An admitted prostitute isn't going to be a very credible witness in a he said she said situation. Now if fucktard john paid with a credit card or they took big smile pictures that would be evidence. If you were the mayor they might try to get you to cum again on a sting and then bust you. I just don't see after the fact with nothing except her word having much traction for a case. If the DA isn't certain he will win he wouldn't pursue the charges.

IMHO.

Wives on the other hand are not DA's and believe everything a hooker says but that's a bedtime story for another day.