In my script the villains kill a cop and the main character cop is angry about it and wants justice. The district attorney does not want to prosecute, because there is not enough evidence against the villains, so he feels it would be a waste of money.
So the cop ends up blackmailing the DA into prosecuting the suspects. However, I am not sure how to go about writing this. If the cop is going to blackmail a DA into prosecuting an 'evidence-less' case, what's the point if a jury will not convict, right? There has to be just enough evidence for the cop to think it has a chance, but not too much evidence cause I need the DA to not prosecute it in the first place.
Basically the cop who is killed, is shot to death in a shoot out. The main cop, also in the shoot out, then has to pretty much take the body, and escape with it, so the crooks cannot have the chance to get rid of it. Once he escapes he then puts the body somewhere, where it can be found, but wipes away his own evidence of being there.
The cop who survived cannot testify himself cause he was not suppose to be there, which is why he left the body somewhere and takes off. But even if he said he was there, his testimony could legally be used anyway.
I originally wrote it so that the surviving cop takes the crooks hostage at gunpoint and forces them to plant evidence. He gets one to spit on the dead body, one to bleed on the it, and one to sign a their gang name on it.
Then what happens is, is that the DA does not prosecute because the investigators tell him that the evidence of the spit, blood and signature, were actually planted by someone else, and not by the gang of crooks themselves. Someone forced the gang to plant the evidence, so the prosecutor does not charge the gang. So the cop learns that his framing of the gang has come off as incompetent, and the DA can tell it was a frame, he then blackmails the DA.
Is this scenario better? That was the original one I wrote, but my friend said she didn't believe it after reading it, because she thinks that a DA would take on evidence even if it could have been planted, and how could they tell really? What do you think, is that more plausible, and I should stick to the original idea?
Or should I just write it so that the body is found, but the DA says there is not enough evidence, and that's all he says. The audience does not need to hear anything more, and the cop blackmails him anyway, even though the audience does not know what kind of faith the cop has, based on evidence whatever evidence there is to go forward with even?
Thanks for the input!
So the cop ends up blackmailing the DA into prosecuting the suspects. However, I am not sure how to go about writing this. If the cop is going to blackmail a DA into prosecuting an 'evidence-less' case, what's the point if a jury will not convict, right? There has to be just enough evidence for the cop to think it has a chance, but not too much evidence cause I need the DA to not prosecute it in the first place.
Basically the cop who is killed, is shot to death in a shoot out. The main cop, also in the shoot out, then has to pretty much take the body, and escape with it, so the crooks cannot have the chance to get rid of it. Once he escapes he then puts the body somewhere, where it can be found, but wipes away his own evidence of being there.
The cop who survived cannot testify himself cause he was not suppose to be there, which is why he left the body somewhere and takes off. But even if he said he was there, his testimony could legally be used anyway.
I originally wrote it so that the surviving cop takes the crooks hostage at gunpoint and forces them to plant evidence. He gets one to spit on the dead body, one to bleed on the it, and one to sign a their gang name on it.
Then what happens is, is that the DA does not prosecute because the investigators tell him that the evidence of the spit, blood and signature, were actually planted by someone else, and not by the gang of crooks themselves. Someone forced the gang to plant the evidence, so the prosecutor does not charge the gang. So the cop learns that his framing of the gang has come off as incompetent, and the DA can tell it was a frame, he then blackmails the DA.
Is this scenario better? That was the original one I wrote, but my friend said she didn't believe it after reading it, because she thinks that a DA would take on evidence even if it could have been planted, and how could they tell really? What do you think, is that more plausible, and I should stick to the original idea?
Or should I just write it so that the body is found, but the DA says there is not enough evidence, and that's all he says. The audience does not need to hear anything more, and the cop blackmails him anyway, even though the audience does not know what kind of faith the cop has, based on evidence whatever evidence there is to go forward with even?
Thanks for the input!
Last edited:
