When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

Conclusions like this are why cases should not be tried in the media and ultimately such asinine assumptions taint potential jury pools. It is idiotic to assume that because a prosecutor has charged something that they have the evidence to prove a case, particulary in high profile cases such as this.

There are careers to be made here and I am sure that the special prosecutor is chomping at the bit for her 15 minutes in the limelight.



This is an incredibly uninformed statement and clearly said by someone who actually spends little or no time in criminal courtrooms. The jury system is the best protection American citizens have. Without it we would be a police state.

You have the stones to criticize others for stepping into what you claim is your expertise, but have no issue stating your uniformed opinions within the expertise of others. The more I read your nonsense (and I try to avoid it as much as possible, but since every other post in this section is yours, it is impossible to avoid), the more it becomes clear to me that hypocrites like you and those that think with your warped logic, like your god Obama, are truly the problem with this country today. People like you are trying to make us a third world country.



Sadly, this is mostly true in reality. A prosecutor's job is supposed to be to seek justice. The reality is that they take a win at all costs attidute often regardless of the true facts of the case and whether justice is really being served. Some of the burying of exculpatory evidence that I have seen by prosecutors over my almost 20 years of criminal practice is astonishing. But when Judges don't impose strict penalties when it occurs, and more often than not no penalty, and prosecutors have absolute immunity from being sued and being held accountable, it will continue to occur.

Do prosecutors sometimes overcharge trying to flush out a plea bargain with some schmo facing a boatload of time? If said schmo didn't bite are they allowed to reduce charges prior to trying in court?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Do prosecutors sometimes overcharge trying to flush out a plea bargain with some schmo facing a boatload of time? If said schmo didn't bite are they allowed to reduce charges prior to trying in court?

probably. and they can instruct juries to consider lesser crimes. hell, the state and the defense attorney can come up with a plea at any time during the proceedings.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

Do prosecutors sometimes overcharge trying to flush out a plea bargain with some schmo facing a boatload of time? If said schmo didn't bite are they allowed to reduce charges prior to trying in court?

I have seen that happen many times. In New York there is very little discovery prior to trial, and evidence is really shrouded in secrecy. I know that Florida permits more discovery than New York, such as pre-trial depositions which a defendant does not have a right to in New York. There is no more valuable discovery than depositions which give each party equal access to all evidence and actually often avoids trials since everyone knows where they stand and it becomes easier to formulate a just agreement.

A scheme that is often used in New York is to take a policy that any plea bargain that involves a reduction in the charges must be done prior to the prosecutor presenting the case to a Grand Jury. Since a defendant has absolutely no right to discovery in New York prior to being indicted by a Grand Jury, prosecutors often intimate that their case is much stronger than it really is without actually allowing me to see the evidence they have.

They are permitted to reduce (or increase) the level of charges in New York any time prior to trial. And yes, I often get threats that if my client does not take the plea bargain today, they will go for the maximum on charges with suggestions of evidence to back it up only to see them reduce the charges often below the level of the plea bargain offer if my client rejects it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

I have seen that happen many times. In New York there is very little discovery prior to trial, and evidence is really shrouded in secrecy. I know that Florida permits more discovery than New York, such as pre-trial depositions which a defendant does not have a right to in New York. There is no more valuable discovery than depositions which give each party equal access to all evidence and actually often avoids trials since everyone knows where they stand and it becomes easier to formulate a just agreement.

A scheme that is often used in New York is to take a policy that any plea bargain that involves a reduction in the charges must be done prior to the prosecutor presenting the case to a Grand Jury. Since a defendant has absolutely no right to discovery in New York prior to being indicted by a Grand Jury, prosecutors often intimate that their case is much stronger than it really is without actually allowing me to see the evidence they have.

They are permitted to reduce (or increase) the level of charges in New York any time prior to trial. And yes, I often get threats that if my client does not take the plea bargain today, they will go for the maximum on charges with suggestions of evidence to back it up only to see them reduce the charges often below the level of the plea bargain offer if my client rejects it.

justice

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

justice

I don't want to suggest that all prosecutors are bad, I have worked with very sensible prosecutors who try to do the right thing. Undoubtedly, the majority of those arrested for crimes are guilty of the crime or some lessor offense.

The problem generally comes from the top of the prosecutor's office and the win at all costs attidute. I have seen assistant prosecutors get fired for doing the right thing and getting rid of cases where they knew the evidence was insufficient for conviction.

Prosecutors love to pass the buck, they have no problem taking a case to trial they know they are going to lose so they can pass the blame, i.e., it was those 12 morons on the jury that let that creep go, I did everything I could, presented the evidence to convict and those idiots ignored it!

The problem gets manifested in a high profile case like this. She has now charged Zimmerman and you can pretty much bet that she is going to go full throttle against him at this point regardless of where the evidence leads. Likely, there is no turning back at this point.

I hope for everyone's sake Zimmerman gets a fair trial and that the evidence dictates the result, not uninformed notions of what people think or want to believe occurred or that that the result be based upon social or political agendas.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

I don't want to suggest that all prosecutors are bad, I have worked with very sensible prosecutors who try to do the right thing. Undoubtedly, the majority of those arrested for crimes are guilty of the crime or some lessor offense.

The problem generally comes from the top of the prosecutor's office and the win at all costs attidute. I have seen assistant prosecutors get fired for doing the right thing and getting rid of cases where they knew the evidence was insufficient for conviction.

Prosecutors love to pass the buck, they have no problem taking a case to trial they know they are going to lose so they can pass the blame, i.e., it was those 12 morons on the jury that let that creep go, I did everything I could, presented the evidence to convict and those idiots ignored it!

The problem gets manifested in a high profile case like this. She has now charged Zimmerman and you can pretty much bet that she is going to go full throttle against him at this point regardless of where the evidence leads. Likely, there is no turning back at this point.

I hope for everyone's sake Zimmerman gets a fair trial and that the evidence dictates the result, not uninformed notions of what people think or want to believe occurred or that that the result be based upon social or political agendas.

Prosecutors win cases , get promoted and receive more money.
Detectives solve cases, get promoted and receive more money.

See the incentives here? Scary.

[Rupert Pupkin]

The bail hearing is this Friday. It will be interesting to see whether the judge grants Zimmerman bail.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The bail hearing is this Friday. It will be interesting to see whether the judge grants Zimmerman bail.

There is little chance that Zimmerman will be granted bail unless the Judge has a wish to destroy his or her career.

Would the bail hearing be the appropriate time for Z's lawyer to move that the case be dismissed under the "Stand Your Ground" law, or is that off the table at this time?

I would not rule out the possibility of bail in this case, but the question of Z's safety looms large, so it might be better for him to be in protective custody. I am sure he is totally sequestered wherever he is being held now.