17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[jamil]

I seriously doubt the Governor will consider it 'a political win' if rioting results no matter the outcome of the trial.

Agreed but I also doubt the Governor is the driving political force behind the murder 2 charge.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Agreed but I also doubt the Governor is the driving political force behind the murder 2 charge.

It's been awhile, but IIRC, the Governor caused her to be appointed Special Prosecutor for this case.

 

[terrehautian]

Sanford Prosecutor declined charges. Uproar begins, he appoints the Special one.

 

[KG1]

Sanford Prosecutor declined charges. Uproar begins, he appoints the Special one.

Charges filed.

 

[Expat]

Oh, don't get me wrong, it happens and the more political the case the more pressure for such a thing to happen. My point is that it virtually never works out like the over-charging prosecutor thinks it will as it both diminishes the prosecutor's reputation for being able to sustain his burden and it diminishes the public's faith that they system is fair/impartial.

Best regards,

Joe

I think we laymen see cases like the football player that was just exonerated for rape and let out of prison, and assume it happens all the time. They threatened to throw him in prison for life so he pled guilty to something that he didn't do. Just so he could have a chance of getting out of prison with some life left ahead of him.

 

[Fargo]

I think we laymen see cases like the football player that was just exonerated for rape and let out of prison, and assume it happens all the time. They threatened to throw him in prison for life so he pled guilty to something that he didn't do. Just so he could have a chance of getting out of prison with some life left ahead of him.

The football play is a very different scenario from what we are talking about here. Had the girl's accusations been true, the rape charge would absolutely have been appropriate and it would not have been overcharging.

What we are talking about here is where a prosecutor believes a crime has occurred but that he/she may have difficulty proving it, so they charge something greater so that they can force a lesser plea.

In the football players case, it sounds to me like if she was telling the truth the rape charge was appropriate and if she was lying no charge was appropriate. Now, it also looks like the prosecutor did a less than stellar job of evaluating the case and very well may have railroaded the kid by charging him period, but not by overcharging him.

Best,

Joe

 

[griffin]

What we are talking about here is where a prosecutor believes a crime has occurred but that he/she may have difficulty proving it, so they charge something greater so that they can force a lesser plea.

Exactly! If Zimmerman would have taken a plea Corey would never have to go to trial and show her evidence, or lack thereof. She could have lied about having evidence the entire time, and no one would ever know.

 

[Fargo]

Exactly! If Zimmerman would have taken a plea Corey would never have to go to trial and show her evidence, or lack thereof. She could have lied about having evidence the entire time, and no one would ever know.

Where are you getting that any plea to a lesser charge has/will be offered? I was unaware of any plea offers being reported.

Best,

Joe

 

[KG1]

What we are talking about here is where a prosecutor believes a crime has occurred but that he/she may have difficulty proving it, so they charge something greater so that they can force a lesser plea.



Best,

Joe

This part right here is the troubling part. Like I posted earlier in the thread.

In theory a prosecutor should not file charges unless they are confident that they have the evidence to support a conviction for the charges they are alleging.

This whole business of overcharging hoping to get a lesser plea because they are not really sure is IMO an abuse of the judicial process that amounts to horse trading to get a conviction at any cost.

 

[strahd71]

This part right here is the troubling part. Like I posted earlier in the thread.

In theory a prosecutor should not file charges unless they are confident that they have the evidence to support a conviction for the charges they are alleging.

This whole business of overcharging hoping to get a lesser plea because they are not really sure is IMO an abuse of the judicial process that amounts to horse trading to get a conviction at any cost.

it does seem that way..... almost like cheating

jake

 

[Fargo]

This part right here is the troubling part. Like I posted earlier in the thread.

In theory a prosecutor should not file charges unless they are confident that they have the evidence to support a conviction for the charges they are alleging.

This whole business of overcharging hoping to get a lesser plea because they are not really sure is IMO an abuse of the judicial process that amounts to horse trading to get a conviction at any cost.

And I absolutely agree that overcharging is an abuse of discretion and usually a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

My initial point is that prosecutors that overcharge may get the conviction they want from it, but it hurts them in the long run on getting future convictions. As I said above, it is a quick fix which just creates a long term problem. That is why it is politically very risky to engage is such behavior.

Plus, I think the vast majority of prosecutors are decent human beings who have no desire to railroad anyone. There are of course exceptions to that rule, there have been some big ones of late like Mike Nifong.

That is why I maintain that electing your county prosecutor is probably the most important vote you cast on election day and you should take it seriously.

Best,

Joe

 

[hornadylnl]

This part right here is the troubling part. Like I posted earlier in the thread.

In theory a prosecutor should not file charges unless they are confident that they have the evidence to support a conviction for the charges they are alleging.

This whole business of overcharging hoping to get a lesser plea because they are not really sure is IMO an abuse of the judicial process that amounts to horse trading to get a conviction at any cost.

You may very well be right and if she trumped this up for publicity, she needs to be dealt with legally. But to my understanding, there's no more evidence to support the theory of a corrupt prosecutor than there is that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

 

[griffin]

Where are you getting that any plea to a lesser charge has/will be offered? I was unaware of any plea offers being reported.

I am not saying any have. I am saying that the threat of Murder 2 and the supposed evidence to prove it (even if none exists) might be enough to get Zimmerman to ask for a plea down to manslaughter to avoid the much harsher Murder 2 penalty. If this were a tactic being used by Corey, she would never have to go to court and show her evidence, or lack thereof. The entire Murder 2 charge could have been a strong arm tactic.

Does she actually have the evidence to back up the charge? We'll see.

 

[strahd71]

I am not saying any have. I am saying that the threat of Murder 2 and the supposed evidence to prove it (even if none exists) might be enough to get Zimmerman to ask for a plea down to manslaughter to avoid the much harsher Murder 2 penalty. If this were a tactic being used by Corey, she would never have to go to court and show her evidence, or lack thereof. The entire Murder 2 charge could have been a strong arm tactic.

Does she actually have the evidence to back up the charge? We'll see.

isnt that in a sense coercion? we are going to threaten you with this outlandish charges an hopes of badgering you into pleading guilty to something else so that we can exact our pound of flesh regardless of being guilty and justice being served?

jake

 

[Fargo]

isnt that in a sense coercion? we are going to threaten you with this outlandish charges an hopes of badgering you into pleading guilty to something else so that we can exact our pound of flesh regardless of being guilty and justice being served?

jake

Yes, and it is unethical and can get you disciplined up through getting your license pulled in most states:

Rule 3.8. Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
Comment

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.
[2] In some jurisdictions, a defendant may waive a preliminary hearing and thereby lose a valuable opportunity to challenge probable cause. Accordingly, prosecutors should not seek to obtain waivers of preliminary hearings or other important pretrial rights from unrepresented accused persons. Paragraph (c) does not apply, however, to an accused appearing pro se with the approval of the tribunal. Nor does it forbid the lawful questioning of an uncharged suspect who has knowingly waived the rights to counsel and silence.
[3] The exception in paragraph (d) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest.
[4] Paragraph (e) is intended to limit the issuance of lawyer subpoenas in grand jury and other criminal proceedings to those situations in which there is a genuine need to intrude into the client-lawyer relationship.
[5] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b), 3.6(c) or 3.6(d).
[6] Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer's office. Paragraph (f) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (f) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.

Of course, prosecutorial discretion is pretty broad so discipline is unlikely unless the case is pretty clear cut and it is demonstrable that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith. Otherwise, every charging would have a disciplinary complaint attached to it.

Best,

Joe

 

[strahd71]

Yes, and it is unethical and can get you disciplined up through getting your license pulled in most states:



Of course, prosecutorial discretion is pretty broad so discipline is unlikely unless the case is pretty clear cut and it is demonstrable that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith. Otherwise, every charging would have a disciplinary complaint attached to it.

Best,

Joe

forgive my ignorance but how does this play out? is this something a judge decides upon while looking at the case? is there a motion that must be filed by the defense?

jake

 

[Bunnykid68]

isnt that in a sense coercion? we are going to threaten you with this outlandish charges an hopes of badgering you into pleading guilty to something else so that we can exact our pound of flesh regardless of being guilty and justice being served?

jake

Well, it worked with a guy that would probably be playing pro football right now, why wouldnt it work on someone else.

Also, I believe one of our out of state members is a felon because of just such a thing, where he is located he probably would have lost so he took the plea to stay out of prison. Does not matter if you are right or wrong sometimes, if you think you might go to prison you might just decide to plea to something you didnt do to avoid prison and bubba

 

[griffin]

isnt that in a sense coercion?

Yes. I think poker players call it bluffing. The problem is when you are looking at a state's prosecutor with, for all practical purposes, unlimited funds and resources he or she can devote to putting you in prison for the rest of your life, or at least the majority of it...well, you get the idea. There is pressure there for you try to cop a plea for 2-10 rather than face 30 years.

But if you are truly innocent...hopefully you can afford to say, "See you in court," and still have hope our "justice system" works half-way well in your case.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yes. I think poker players call it bluffing. The problem is when you are looking at a state's prosecutor with, for all practical purposes, unlimited funds and resources he or she can devote to putting you in prison for the rest of your life, or at least the majority of it...well, you get the idea. There is pressure there for you try to cop a plea for 2-10 rather than face 30 years.

But if you are truly innocent...hopefully you can afford to say, "See you in court," and still have hope our "justice system" works half-way well in your case.

Stuff like this and some cops wonder why cops scare the hell out of me. They can have me in front of a prosecutor like that for a number of made up reasons reasons

 

[Fargo]

forgive my ignorance but how does this play out? is this something a judge decides upon while looking at the case? is there a motion that must be filed by the defense?

jake

Anyone involved in the matter files a disciplinary complaint with the Indiana Supreme Court and they have resources to investigate/prosecute the complaint if it is found to be with merit.

Best,

Joe