My question involves criminal law for the state of: Massachusetts
A friend received a court summons and was not arrested for two criminal charges. He was arraigned for malicious destruction of property over 250 and larceny under 250. He was given a court appointed attorney who set a trial date.
A few years ago he pleaded guilty to larceny under 250. The case was continued without a finding.
1. He was not arrested. Is that because there was not enough evidence to arrest, or is that the way it is done? Was he indited by a grand jury? Is not being arrested a good sign of not being able to be convicted, or does it not matter?
2. Is his criminal record allowed to be admitted in court?
The evidence consists of the "victim's" statement to police, pictures of two broken mugs, other pictures of the crime scene not too specific.
Allegedly, a pair of glasses were scratched and cash was taken. No one else was considered a suspect except my friend.
3. Is that enough evidence to convict? what tactics would be used to prove his guilt, what can he do to defend?
4. what are his chances of being convicted? should he get a lawyer? or just stick with a court appointed? or represent himself?
5. to me, it seem like he was overcharged. does that sound like malicious destruction of property to any one else, or was this an overreaction?
6. there is no proof that the cash ever existed. Is it normal for a person to be charged criminally for a claim when there is no proof that it even happen?

