Kek no, there is no such statute. You're fucked if he told them the truth.

>>16801097
I have no idea what you're trying to say, OP.

But if your friend accused you of selling him drugs, the solution is pretty simple. Get rid of the drugs.

You can't get in any trouble if you're just accused of something. Especially if your friend hasn't agreed to testify against you. As long as there isn't any physical evidence.

>>16801123
That's the thing. He didn't. It has nothing to do with the truth, the problem is that Wisconsin just allows hearsay. If someone says something, you did it. I've known people who have been revoked for probation for this. That's why falsified statutory/sexual assault charges are such an issue here.

Apparently just saying he was high/did it out of spite isn't enough. So basically I'm fucked no matter what. I could have sworn there was some procedure where they are supposed to wait for sobriety purposes but apparently I am mistaken because I keep reading about people doing the same thing and can't get their statement retracted... Well, I'm fucked I guess.

>>16801140
>You can't get in any trouble if you're just accused of something. As long as there isn't any physical evidence.

110% false. Courts routinely convict people without solid evidence every day. Sorry but people who say this kind of stuff have probably never even been to court.

It has nothing to do with selling drugs, it's that they were high and drunk and made a statement against me to alleviate their own anger/blame me for them getting caught and now regrets it because it wasn't true.

Well, I'm not seeing anything about procedure they follow and my state allows hearsay for conviction and revocation so I'm fucked apparently...

>>16801097
You are asking the wrong question. When he said it is irrelevant. The only real questions are what you were accused of and whether you're guilty.

It is true that people are sometimes arrested and even convicted on someone's accusation, but not on the accusation alone - only if they can build a case around that one point.

So if, for example, someone says you sold him drugs and the cops already know you to be a dealer, they might use this accusation to come after you. But if, say, someone accuses you of robbing a store at 7:00 on Friday night and you can prove you were someplace else, the "hearsay" is useless and they won't even try.

So the real question to focus on is did you do it and can you prove you didn't?

>>16801273
This

>>16801097
He can claim he was high and deny that statement, just tell him to tell the cops and hislawyer that he was bullshitting them. If that doesnt work he can claim a psychological problem with lying.

>>16801154
>the problem is that Wisconsin just allows hearsay
Really? That seems pretty ridiculous, even by American standards.
Wouldn't it violate the 6th Amendment to just 'allow hearsay' in all cases? You have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against you.
If that really is how it works, wouldn't prosecutors just rely on statements all the time and never call any witnesses in court?

The statement is not the basis of a prosecution. It can be evidence even if not admissible but for charging its whether it not the police have reasonable grounds to believe you've committed an offence. The court then decides if you did it or not.

So, yeah, you could be arrested and charged.

There could be all sorts of things youcan find to help you. Look up things like criminal act (year) (state), I don't know how it works in america but find the criminal legislation at a national if tere is one and state level. Then read the whole thing slowly and painstakingly until you find something.

>>16801169
>hearsay for conviction
Highly doubt it.
Law is about facts. Hearsay is the world of make believe and fantasy, not a logical, methodical approach to the truth of a matter.

>>16801097
Case law bitch. Look it up, then get new friends.