Several years ago, I watched a podcast and a older law professor talked over the decline of prosecutors. It'd reached a level (he said) where numerous charges were being tossed at folks, and the deal was to bargain the situation down to the 'guilty-party' accepting one or two lesser charges, and marginal jail-time (at least a year or two in semi-serious cases).
Real prosecution cases....in his mind....no longer existed.
I think this prosecution team in the Rittenhouse case....were on this remarkable 'ride' and figured that they'd eventually offer Rittenhouse two lesser charges....get him to admit guilt, and they'd avoid a real courtroom case.
Weeks progressed, and Rittenhouse never wanted a deal.
In my mind, the prosecution team walked into a case that they were never capable of winning, and had done marginal preparation for the situation.
The skills that might have been there for a 1920s or 1930s courtroom case? Long gone.
Just my humble view.
2 comments:
A contrarian view:
.
What if...
Everybody involved was passive-aggressive telling soros to [go away] and die?
.
What if the government agents took the soros money with zero-zero-zero intent of producing a decent prosecution?
I think you have a large prosecution population existing today, without any real talent to prosecute, and they typically over-charge to get you into a compromise situation...to avoid court-room action. Wouldn't matter on the Soros case deal...they couldn't achieve any real success without negotiation.
Post a Comment