Can’t wait to see what her testimony says. Hopefully it’s worth the lenient sentencing here because probation really doesn’t seem like adequate punishment, especially for an attorney with a professional obligation to the law.
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
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.
Witness credibility is questionable with a lot of criminal defendants that flip, so I get what you’re saying.
But it doesn’t completely negate their testimony. Many times it’s still used as the linchpin, even from sources known to lie. Good attorneys can make sure to point out the weaknesses, address it, and still make powerful arguments using the nuggets of truth hidden within.
One vital part of any court proceeding is simply the introduction of evidence and testimony. The prosecution doesn’t have a lot of leeway to just list off what they think happened. They need to find people who will get on the stand and say it for them, even if they’re not the most reliable witness.
These people could also offer other types of evidence, such as written records, expenses, or other documentation that helps in the prosecution’s case. As hard as investigators try, it’s fairly common for some evidence to remain out of sight unless someone decides to bring it forward (use it as leverage to get a more lenient plea, most often).
I’d be surprised to find out they’re letting these people off easy without something fairly substantial in return.
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.
If they also get Kenneth Cheseboro to plead by tomorrow then they can avoid showing their hand in this first case. Personally I think that's a small price to pay to up the prosecutors' odds of convicting the boss.
I'm curious what the Rico implications will be in subsequent cases.
The more guilty pleas and convictions of the charges related to the RICO charge, the better. No doubt this strengthens it since it does include guilty pleas. It’s not a dismissal of the charges.
This is a pretty good synopsis of the implications of this deal (abovethelaw.com is a pretty well-respected legal blog if you ever want more legal-specific coverage):
Donald Trump is going to die in custody.
Bold of you to assume he'll suffer consequences of any kind.
lol fucking doofuses catching charges left and right
The kraken has cracked!
Although I’m sad I don’t get to make cheese & kracker jokes about their joint trial anymore
It's amazing how successful and awesome MAGA is:
Making
Attorneys
Get
Attorneys
Sidney Powell just go swallowed by a Kraken