this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
92 points (97.9% liked)
Politics
1025 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's hard to imagine her testimony could be significantly valuable.
She's not credible at all to anyone who matters in the legal system. Anyone she testifies against just points to her and says "Why should you believe anything this liar says?!" Which is a good fucking point.
I don't understand why anyone would've wanted to cut her a deal.
I certainly do not know but perhaps it is enough of an advantage in streamlining this massive case? I would think every co-defendant who pleads guilty, no matter their testimony strengthens the case against the others.
They're pursuing this case under the RICO act, and thus will be charging any of the co-conspirators with the charges brought forth to any other co-conspirators; at least this is how I understand it.
I'm no legal expert, so I can't really explain the details, though. However, it does seem that convictions of other defendants will strengthen their case against subsequent defendants.
One of the most important characteristics to RICO charges is that you usually have to establish evidence of a criminal enterprise. So these charges against related persons that result in guilty pleas or convictions are then used as evidence in the RICO case against others.
Under the RICO charge, the prosecution can use the related convictions against others to establish wrongdoing by another actor/defendant. So even if there is not a lot of direct evidence against someone, all of the charges from the people they’re connected to are used as evidence in a RICO charge prosecution.
It’s basically to make sure that a mob boss can’t get away free because they never actually held the gun or were at the crime scene. If they’re deeply intertwined with tons of criminal acts, RICO laws make sure they can be held accountable even without being at the scene or personally doing anything.
It doesn’t necessarily force the prosecutors to charge everyone with the same crimes. It’s just a useful tool to use against those who do a decent job at avoiding direct evidence against themselves.
Great description, thank you for clarifying.