Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Is immunity a form of blackmail.
Is immunity a form of blackmail.
By PhiloBeddo
7 Sep 2023 12:08 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
7 Sep 2023 2:08 pm
Red, the jury will know they got off with a two or three year or so prison sentence, if they truthfully testify.RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑ So... blackmailing someone into lying to convict an innocent person is sometimes necessary and/or warranted?
You're gonna have to explain that one bud.
Such deals must be disclosed.
7 Sep 2023 2:12 pm
I would say that it is a form of extortion. It is probably hypocritical and not justifiable to allow the government to engage in extortion to get what it wants.PhiloBeddo » 07 Sep 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑ A way for Government to get someone to lie to get a false conviction. It's fun and games now for Democrats. But what happens when it's done to them.
7 Sep 2023 2:17 pm
7 Sep 2023 2:30 pm
That's all fine and dandy but what if you and I robbed a liquor store and I shot and killed the clerk... and then lied and said you did it and got off with just a couple years while you went away for life.Bruce » 07 Sep 2023, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑ Red, the jury will know they got off with a two or three year or so prison sentence, if they truthfully testify.
Such deals must be disclosed.
Because the prosecutor had something personal against you.
Is that acceptable?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
7 Sep 2023 3:50 pm
RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes.
If it were a choice between coercing a witness to lie under oath to get a conviction or allowing a guilty man to walk, then the guilty man should walk.
I think it's interesting that you feel the opposite.
Interesting that you can't fathom the possibility of the witness not lying. Is it possible (not the same as probable) that the witness with baggage is not lying.
7 Sep 2023 3:51 pm
That’s why the prosecutors start out with small fish.RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑ That's all fine and dandy but what if you and I robbed a liquor store and I shot and killed the clerk... and then lied and said you did it and got off with just a couple years while you went away for life.
Because the prosecutor had something personal against you.
Is that acceptable?
The old guy above is 80 years old and if by a miracle Biden had won Missouri he would have been a Missouri Biden Elector. But JC stayed home on December 14 and drank a little Scotch whiskey his wife there, didn’t know he had stashed.
There are salt of this earth lifelong Republican Party members who have waited a lifetime to be Republican electors in seven states where the Biden electors were the only real electors.
Those folks, mostly old women, should get probation if they name who told them to sign false certificates.
7 Sep 2023 3:55 pm
Depends on what the witness has to lose or gain regarding what the prosecution is offering.impartialobserver » 07 Sep 2023, 3:50 pm » wrote: ↑ Interesting that you can't fathom the possibility of the witness not lying. Is it possible (not the same as probable) that the witness with baggage is not lying.
I would think most criminals would say just about anything the prosecutor wanted them to say if it meant staying out of prison or having the time you have to do greatly reduced.
If I was looking at 10-15 for whatever crime and the prosecutor told me that if my testimony helped put another defendant else away for life, and I could go home tomorrow, I would say just about anything he told me to say.
Wouldn't you?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
7 Sep 2023 4:01 pm
RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 3:55 pm » wrote: ↑ Depends on what the witness has to lose or gain regarding what the prosecution is offering.
I would think most criminals would say just about anything he prosecutor wanted them to say if it meant staying out of prison or having the time you have to do greatly reduced.
If I was looking at 10-15 for whatever crime and the prosecutor told me that if my testimony helped put another defendant else away for life, I could go home tomorrow, I would just about say anything he told me to say.
Wouldn't you?
I would indeed.
However, we are leaving out a lot of context. What if I was doing 3 life sentences and was only being granted immunity on a separate charge? Either way.. still doing 3 life sentences. There are other possibilities so not sure what is gained by listing all of them
So lets get back to the topic.. is it possible that the witness is not lying?
7 Sep 2023 4:18 pm
When I was a federal prosecutor for the northern district of California we would routinely force people to plea bargain under the threat of bankruptcy just to keep our conviction rate high.
Even if we determined later on in our investigation that the person we were prosecuting happens to be innocent we would still force them to plea bargain under threat of personal bankruptcy. Because a plea bargain is a conviction and all that matters is that conviction rate to us.
Now people with no collateral. No home. Nothing of value. Poor people. It works differently.
We would work with the federally appointed public defender to scare the defendant into taking the deal or else face 3x the amount of prison time if they didn't.
Now that works two ways. It counts as a win for the prosecution and for the public defender.
It's basically a giant **** show with political aspirations
Even if we determined later on in our investigation that the person we were prosecuting happens to be innocent we would still force them to plea bargain under threat of personal bankruptcy. Because a plea bargain is a conviction and all that matters is that conviction rate to us.
Now people with no collateral. No home. Nothing of value. Poor people. It works differently.
We would work with the federally appointed public defender to scare the defendant into taking the deal or else face 3x the amount of prison time if they didn't.
Now that works two ways. It counts as a win for the prosecution and for the public defender.
It's basically a giant **** show with political aspirations
7 Sep 2023 4:22 pm
The topic is whether or not a prosecutor offering immunity or leniency to another person, that is accused of a crime themselves, to help convict a codefendant in the same case is blackmail or not.impartialobserver » 07 Sep 2023, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑ I would indeed.
However, we are leaving out a lot of context. What if I was doing 3 life sentences and was only being granted immunity on a separate charge? Either way.. still doing 3 life sentences. There are other possibilities so not sure what is gained by listing all of them
So lets get back to the topic.. is it possible that the witness is not lying?
I believe it is, and it's also abused, which leads to people going away for something the may not have done.
Prosecutors gain prominence and notariety by putting heads on the wall, and quite often, they will go to extreme measures to bag those trophies.
I just believe that with the practice of offering immunity for testimony, the temptation is just too great for all parties involved not to bend it in their favor, even if it means lying and manipulating the jury through false testimony for the favor. In the majority of cases it's a convicted or soon to be convicted criminal that getting the pay for play.
Of course the chances of them lying is higher. Much higher I would say. They have motive.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
7 Sep 2023 4:27 pm
Suborning perjury is a felony. If an "officer of the court" (attorney or judge) has evidence it has happened they are legally bound to step forward.RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑ Yes.
If it were a choice between coercing a witness to lie under oath to get a conviction or allowing a guilty man to walk, then the guilty man should walk.
I think it's interesting that you feel the opposite.
Just curious...with all the real issues in this world to discuss, why make up a stupid *** hypothetical question?
7 Sep 2023 4:32 pm
When you were a fed, you also knew sometimes people like JC only old Republicans were pawns in the game.Warcok » 07 Sep 2023, 4:18 pm » wrote: ↑ When I was a federal prosecutor for the northern district of California we would routinely force people to plea bargain under the threat of bankruptcy just to keep our conviction rate high.
Even if we determined later on in our investigation that the person we were prosecuting happens to be innocent we would still force them to plea bargain under threat of personal bankruptcy. Because a plea bargain is a conviction and all that matters is that conviction rate to us.
Now people with no collateral. No home. Nothing of value. Poor people. It works differently.
We would work with the federally appointed public defender to scare the defendant into taking the deal or else face 3x the amount of prison time if they didn't.
Now that works two ways. It counts as a win for the prosecution and for the public defender.
It's basically a giant **** show with political aspirations
But I’ve asked JC if he’d go vote for Biden as an alternate elector next year, and JC said he prefers not going to Leavenworth.
War, the problem we all were always so worried about, was false electors who voted for other candidates.
Now there are all those false certificates of Ascertainment for Trump and a bunch of good Republican souls who trusted somebody they were legal.
They must have consequences.
JC likes his scotch.
If he gets cancer, he might join a Harris plot.
This must stop, with only one attempt.
7 Sep 2023 4:32 pm
Felons gonna felon.ConsRule » 07 Sep 2023, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑ Suborning perjury is a felony. If an "officer of the court" (attorney or judge) has evidence it has happened they are legally bound to step forward.
Just curious...with all the real issues in this world to discuss, why make up a stupid *** hypothetical question?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
7 Sep 2023 4:35 pm
The prosecutor would be the one suborning perjury...the witness would be the one committing perjury. Besides, the court would also throw out the deal...illegal deals cannot be enforced.
7 Sep 2023 4:47 pm
It would only be thrown out if the defense could prove that the crook getting the payola was lying... either by admission or evidence.ConsRule » 07 Sep 2023, 4:35 pm » wrote: ↑ The prosecutor would be the one suborning perjury...the witness would be the one committing perjury. Besides, the court would also throw out the deal...illegal deals cannot be enforced.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
7 Sep 2023 5:40 pm
Speak of the devil.
RedheadedStranger
It would only be thrown out if the defense could prove that the crook getting the payola was lying... either by admission or evidence.
WALTERBORO, S.C. — Lawyers for convicted murderer Alex Murdaugh filed a motion Tuesday seeking a new trial, alleging they had uncovered evidence of jury tampering.
Rebecca Hill, the Colleton County clerk of court, "tampered with the jury by advising them not to believe Murdaugh's testimony and other evidence presented by the defense, pressuring them to reach a quick guilty verdict, and even misrepresenting critical and material information to the trial judge in her campaign to remove a juror she believed to be favorable to the defense," attorneys Richard "Dick" Harpootlian and Jim Griffin claim in the motion.——
https://youtu.be/W4B6c2Q0PBw?si=s-2pAsB5c1vNJLAe
——
If the Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill did that she needs a life sentence, or the absolute maximum.
——
7 Sep 2023 6:01 pm
RedheadedStranger » 07 Sep 2023, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑ The topic is whether or not a prosecutor offering immunity or leniency to another person, that is accused of a crime themselves, to help convict a codefendant in the same case is blackmail or not.
I believe it is, and it's also abused, which leads to people going away for something the may not have done.
Prosecutors gain prominence and notariety by putting heads on the wall, and quite often, they will go to extreme measures to bag those trophies.
I just believe that with the practice of offering immunity for testimony, the temptation is just too great for all parties involved not to bend it in their favor, even if it means lying and manipulating the jury through false testimony for the favor. In the majority of cases it's a convicted or soon to be convicted criminal that getting the pay for play.
Of course the chances of them lying is higher. Much higher I would say. They have motive.
In closing, offering immunity to a codefendant or simply a witness involved in another case, would not be the first tool in my belt. However, there could be relatively rare times where it is needed. It would depend on mostly how big the prize is. If the primary defendant (one that I am really wanting to get) is someone who is charged with one count of armed robbery.. probably not necessary. Now if it is the head of a drug kingpin and there are possibly dozens of charges and I have only only one witness (one that has committed crimes connected or not to the primary).. then this may be of use.
7 Sep 2023 6:09 pm
Nope. Besides you do know perjury is also a crime.PhiloBeddo » 07 Sep 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑ A way for Government to get someone to lie to get a false conviction. It's fun and games now for Democrats. But what happens when it's done to them.
What is it with Trump dick suckers? That they forget the law and **** on the Constitution every time he spits in their mouths?
7 Sep 2023 6:14 pm
Trump is not a political figure.Pastafarian » 07 Sep 2023, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Nope. Besides you do know perjury is also a crime.
What is it with Trump dick suckers? That they forget the law and **** on the Constitution every time he spits in their mouths?
He is a cult leader of over 70 million.
At least a third of those are True Believers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
7 Sep 2023 6:27 pm
Trump is the greatest demagogue in American history.Bruce » 07 Sep 2023, 6:14 pm » wrote: ↑ Trump is not a political figure.
He is a cult leader of over 70 million.
At least a third of those are True Believers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
Also what you wrote.
Who is online
In total there are 4440 users online :: 6 registered, 12 bots, and 4422 guests
Bots: proximic, DuckDuckBot, ADmantX, Bolt, YandexBot, facebookexternalhit, Mediapartners-Google, Googlebot, CriteoBot, bingbot, Applebot, curl/7