A vigilante killer is going around doing his thing and is eventually caught before his quest is finished. I want him to go to trial, but is acquitted, because he had a smart plan in place in case he was caught, and got off for a few reasons.
He goes back out on the street and then plans on committing future murders. However, this premise is flawed it seems because the cops could just tail him and keep an eye on him, so he cannot commit future crimes and get away with it undetected.
I was thinking of writing it so when he is first arrested he never gives his name and has no ID on him, so the cops cannot figure out who he is, since he is not in the system previously.
But thing about this, is is that judges would not allow someone to go to trial if the person will not give up his name. I asked a cop, and he said that it in those cases, it's contempt of court, and the judges will refuse to arraign the perp, who will be locked up forever until he caves his name.
But if I wrote it so that he does not give up his name, but they have the trial anyway, then he can be free to leave the courthouse when he gets off, and he can loose the police surveillance, before he goes back to his home. That way, the cops will not know where he lives and cannot figure out who he is.
But will audiences accept it as believable, that they would go to trial for someone who refuses to give his name and would be in contempt of court, for doing so? Or I just need to write it that he can get off with the crime, but the cops cannot keep tails on afterwards, even though they would for serious murders.
He goes back out on the street and then plans on committing future murders. However, this premise is flawed it seems because the cops could just tail him and keep an eye on him, so he cannot commit future crimes and get away with it undetected.
I was thinking of writing it so when he is first arrested he never gives his name and has no ID on him, so the cops cannot figure out who he is, since he is not in the system previously.
But thing about this, is is that judges would not allow someone to go to trial if the person will not give up his name. I asked a cop, and he said that it in those cases, it's contempt of court, and the judges will refuse to arraign the perp, who will be locked up forever until he caves his name.
But if I wrote it so that he does not give up his name, but they have the trial anyway, then he can be free to leave the courthouse when he gets off, and he can loose the police surveillance, before he goes back to his home. That way, the cops will not know where he lives and cannot figure out who he is.
But will audiences accept it as believable, that they would go to trial for someone who refuses to give his name and would be in contempt of court, for doing so? Or I just need to write it that he can get off with the crime, but the cops cannot keep tails on afterwards, even though they would for serious murders.