Before we get to the main topic, we feel compelled to report that on Tuesday. November 1, QAnon supporters gathered in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, to await the return of John F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of the late president. In QAnon/Republican beliefs, 11/1 was the day JFK Jr was going to return. The former president of the United States would then make JKF Jr his running mate in 2024. And if we take the story to it's QAnon/Republican fullest, once President again, POTUS 45/47 would resign to become...we kid you not..."King of Kings."
 |
| The Scene at Dealey Plaza Tuesday |
Alas, none of this came to pass, probably because of the intervention of Vampire/Pedophile/Pizza Restaurant owners, who once again thwarted the former president.
SHOULD THE DOJ BRING A CASE THEY CANNOT WIN?
In Miami this past week there was the ABA White Collar Criminal Defense meeting. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco gave a speech in which she indicated that her department would bring a case they had little chance of winning.
Into this contretemps stepped none other that our own David O Markus who wrote this piece in the Hill disagreeing with the position of Ms. Monaco. Mr. Markus rightly pointed out the collateral consequences of just being indicted, including loss of job, loss of income, an enormous financial undertaking in hiring a defense team, and the personal stress of going through trial prep and a trial.
While we tend to agree with Mr. Markus, there is another side here. Right is right. Criminals should be prosecuted, and no lawyer, not even a prosecutor, should walk away from a tough fight.
What say you? With whom do you agree?
9 comments:
in an ironic, but not unexpected, twist, at the same time these Qanon-ers waited for JFK Jr.'s second coming, well over 100 world leaders flew in just as many massive jets, drove in car caravans which looked like 8am rush hour on I-95, to speak with, listen to, or get some shut eye, about the need to cut everyone else's carbon footprint to save the world. Talk about King of Kings....
I think you're both wrong.
As Ms.Reno told us the day we started work, you don’t bring a case that you cannot prove.
As a general principle, scarce public tax dollars should be spent prudently. Therefore, they should rarely be spent prosecuting cases with little chance of success. Think of all the savings we would achieve if KFR’s office stopped prosecuting simple drug possession cases, which they rarely can prove to a Miami-Dade jury BARD. This would have downhill benefits of disincentivizing police to squander our tax dollars on enforcement of those offenses that the State’s own prefiling code labels as “victimless.” Of course, police departments would retain the option of gathering sufficient evidence to allow prosecutors to win those cases. That said, hopefully there would be political consequences for doing so.
It really depends on the victim, the defendant, and the cost to the taxpayer. Decision on a case to case basis. If they defendant was someone like Trump or his crooked family and cohorts, HELL YES!!!!
I started out with the then DCPSD in 1975 and then later to MSPD after getting frustated(sp) with baby ASA's making wrong decisions. While still working the street I got my BA, got accepted to Nova and went to law school later passing the bar and starting in the Broward SAO. I was trained that as an ASA if you didn't have a good faith belief of obtaining a conviction which would be affirmed on appeal given the evidence and the law you should have discussions with a supervisor concerning the case. When a disagreement arose I would write a memo and then forward it to the ASAIC of the unit I was in given my reason to decline the case. That standard has stayed with me since that time even today where I'm still prosecuting bad folks who commit the most serious crime. Of course I heard more times than I wish to recall an ASA just stating in court, "It's office policy" which was BS. The ASA(s) were just too lazy to justify the decision. Of course the FEDS don't answer to anyone. I follow my oath and make the tough calls and yes I've lost cases at trial, but won more than I've lost. She's a goof. Thanks SAO5
If they have probable cause and really believe the guy is guilty, yes... they should do it.
That happens everyday. What about when prosecutors are not sure the guy is guilty. Hmmmm.
Please stop with the "what say you." It's dumb.
I say bring the weak cases. More trial fees for the lawyer.
Post a Comment