Don’t look at the conviction rate for federal prosecutors then. And stock up on BBQ sauce. A NY jury would convict Trump of just being fat and ugly, that’s how much everyone (including Republicans) hate him. People literally go out of their way to make their dogs pee on Trump Tower.
You will just change your mind and say “He should have gotten more time! 5 years is nothing. House arrest? His house is huge!”
For a former president, that’s the worst possible.
The thing is that they, like state and local prosecutors, prosecute poor people who can’t afford effective representation tens if not hundreds of times as often.
If you isolate their stats with regards to rich and/or powerful defendants like the Mango Mussolini, suddenly they don’t convict at anywhere near that rate.
The difference is so immense that even an obviously guilty oaf with incompetent and unhinged lawyers like him is more likely than not to win or at the very least delay until his own death at his country club home.
Oh God, I don’t even know where to start. How do you “argue in good faith” with someone who cites a book revire as evidence? And then you bother to look at the book reviee and it says nothing about winning at trial/after charging due to wealth?
Such a high win rate for federal prosecutions is indicative of a problem. Whether that be only taking cases which they are assured victory or winning against those who are not guilty, they’re both wrong.
The criminal justice system is intended to be biased in favor of the defendants as innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, if everything were working perfectly, I’d expect prosecutors to only charge people if they were extremely confident that they could prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Taking cases without solid evidence and regularly losing at trial would be indicative of a major problem.
Don’t look at the conviction rate for federal prosecutors then. And stock up on BBQ sauce. A NY jury would convict Trump of just being fat and ugly, that’s how much everyone (including Republicans) hate him. People literally go out of their way to make their dogs pee on Trump Tower.
You will just change your mind and say “He should have gotten more time! 5 years is nothing. House arrest? His house is huge!”
For a former president, that’s the worst possible.
Maybe people in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, and Manhattan hate him, but Staten Island, Long Island, and upstate NY are Trump country
Where do you think all the people live? It’s not Staten Island.
TIL nobody lives on Staten Island.
Guess it’s all vampires.
I’ll sit on the laurel of all the presidents who have been convicted of their crimes so far.
While you’re looking at them, compare their average approval ratings. Trump has the lowest of them all, having never broken 50% approval.
I’m sure that will really hamper him in the popularity contest portion of the trial but he will pick those back up in the swimsuit contest.
I get what you’re saying, but yuck
The thing is that they, like state and local prosecutors, prosecute poor people who can’t afford effective representation tens if not hundreds of times as often.
If you isolate their stats with regards to rich and/or powerful defendants like the Mango Mussolini, suddenly they don’t convict at anywhere near that rate.
The difference is so immense that even an obviously guilty oaf with incompetent and unhinged lawyers like him is more likely than not to win or at the very least delay until his own death at his country club home.
Oh so you “isolated the stats” then.
Great, share them!
Even though it doesn’t seem like you’re gonna argue in good faith, here’s a review of a book about it.
Oh God, I don’t even know where to start. How do you “argue in good faith” with someone who cites a book revire as evidence? And then you bother to look at the book reviee and it says nothing about winning at trial/after charging due to wealth?
Such a high win rate for federal prosecutions is indicative of a problem. Whether that be only taking cases which they are assured victory or winning against those who are not guilty, they’re both wrong.
The criminal justice system is intended to be biased in favor of the defendants as innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, if everything were working perfectly, I’d expect prosecutors to only charge people if they were extremely confident that they could prove the person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Taking cases without solid evidence and regularly losing at trial would be indicative of a major problem.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/may/21/innocence-be-damned-prosecutors-who-disregard-justice-push-win-any-cost/
If prosecutors lost more cases, that would mean they were being even more aggressive in over-prosecuting flimsy cases.