When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[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.

[bigrun]

Trayvon Martin: There are other issues.


Editor, Times-Dispatch:

The emphasis on race in the Trayvon Martin shooting has obscured two other issues. First, why has discussion of Florida's "stand your ground" law applied only to George Zimmerman? Martin also had a right to be in the gated complex. He wasn't looking in windows, hiding or moving surreptitiously, only returning with junk food from a convenience store.

Zimmerman chose to track him and if he were approaching Martin too closely or calling out, he likely made Martin feel threatened. The young man probably had no idea Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman. He only knew someone was following him who could possibly harm him. Why did Martin not also have a right to stand his ground?

Which raises a second issue: Zimmerman had a permit to carry and most likely his gun was visible. Being armed, he probably felt safe disregarding the admonition not to follow Martin. If he hadn't been armed it's very possible he wouldn't have followed Martin.

Both issues raise the question whether Zimmerman's permit to carry and possession of the gun itself suggest to most that "stand your ground" applied to him rather than Martin. Is there a tendency to think someone legally armed is right and the unarmed individual is not? Why doesn't "stand your ground" apply equally to Martin?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

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.

This is not the hearing where Zimmerman's lawyer will ask to have the case dismissed. That will happen next month.