When
some prosecutors argue in court, the things they sometimes say are so absurd
(and often factually wrong) that I wish the trial judges had some inner Professor Kingsfield and could muster the courage to call bullshit, i.e., tell the
prosecutors that they’re offending the concepts of logic, reason, and truth. The recent case of State v. Locke perfectly
illustrates this all too common problem.
In Locke, the prosecutor induced the defendant to plead guilty to
some serious felonies, thus saving the prosecutor and the court several days in
trial, and taking away all risk that a jury could find the defendant not
guilty. In exchange for the pleas, the prosecutor
agreed not to make a specific sentence recommendation. That is, the prosecutor retained the right to talk
about the offenses and say negative things about the defendant, but he
promised to leave the specific sentence up to the judge. So what happened at the sentencing hearing?
After
the prosecutor got what he wanted from the defendant, he decided to renege on
his part of the deal. He specifically
recommended a sentence—not just any sentence, but the maximum possible
sentence—of “50 years.” And when the defense
lawyer objected, how did the prosecutor respond? He said: “So the recommendation here is a non-recommendation.”
(¶ 3.)
Now
that’s some serious bullshit. Although
the printed transcript can’t capture it, I’ll bet the prosecutor was even winking
at the judge while the pure nonsense flew out of his mouth. Fortunately, the appellate court was quick to
catch on:
Surely,
labeling the recommendation a “non-recommendation” does nothing to change the
nature of the statement itself. . . . When the court reminded the prosecutor a
recommendation was impermissible, the prosecutor appeared to reaffirm his “non-recommendation”:
“Right, that’s what I’m saying.” (¶¶ 6-7.)
It
seems like this prosecutor was trying to confuse things by playing “opposite day” in court. In any case, that’s not
the worst of the bullshit. On appeal,
the government’s appellate counsel defended the prosecutor’s sentence
recommendation of “50 years” by arguing that the statement “was ambiguous
and not an explicit sentencing recommendation.” (¶ 8.)
“Arguments” like this make me wish law school was
more rigorous and flunked more students.
Remember back in the Clinton years when the "Only in America__________" sayings were as rampant as they were embarrassing? I wouldn't have guessed that they'd be back so soon. Luckily the subject matter isn't just limited to that, and now we can make jokes like Yakov Smirnoff!
ReplyDeleteWith 2013 NSA, you don't explore space, space explores you! or
With 2013 NSA, you don't watch Big Brother, Big Brother watches you!
We hoped!!! We got change!!!
But you posed the question: Why would anyone seriously listen to anything that any government agent has to say?
Imprisonment.
I delayed posting for a bit to ponder. I can't think of anything else.
Or if not that, taxes…with which non-compliance eventually leads to…imprisonment.
It’s one thing for government agents to effect takings on you as a result of earnings. It’s worse when takings are necessary as a condition of citizenship (the unAffordable Care Act). It’s yet another when it’s done disproportionately or excessively (ex. Phil Mickleson & his 53% tax rate).
By what I choose to call "The Transitive Property of Taxation" (or "The Transitive Property of Stupidity" if you prefer) civil "servants" find shoring up the vote of Obamaphone recipients worth threatening you with imprisonment for withholding what government claims as legitimate takings.
Have a beer & think about that one. How's that for some bullshit?
Michael, let's not be too hard on Fox Mulder - he never pretended to be anything other than a fictional character, despite the close resemblances he bore to some real-life characters I've encounteered.
ReplyDeleteTimo.