The Judge got it right this time

[Lew]

I'm speaking of Judge Nicholls' ruling in the Amy Baker case. Personally, I'd like to see charges of prosecutorial misconduct brought against the Mason County prosecutors who brought the case in the first place, but I can live with the judge's ruling here.

We all know Amy Baker is (well, it blocks out the words on this site, but you know where I'm going with this). That said, a deal was made. We discussed this before, the Clermont prosecutors had to make a decision- let one go and get two, or run the risk of losing all three. In the end, they concluded (rightfully so) that 2 out of 3 is better than 0 out of 3.

OK a deal is a deal. Now yes, I prefer to have things in writing, but your word, among fellow prosecutors, should be sufficient. And from what the Cleromont people are saying, the Mason county people agreed to not pursue the charge. It doesn't mean she's not guilty of it, but that's the nature of plea bargaining.

The public, as always, is so far behind the curve it's ridiculous. I can't tell you how many letters/posts/calls I've heard over the years from people who think that plea bargaining should never occur. Well, the fact is, there are many reasons why cases are pled down. And in this case, some very serious ones. You had a little boy who was killed, and there was the very real possibility that his killer(s) would get away with it. Yes, I agree with a lot of the sentiment that, from what we heard, it sounds like Amy may have been the most culpable. OK we can debate that on end, I don't necessarily disagree. But, the fact is, Liz and David were the foster parents, and responsibility for Marcus ultimately rested with them.

So Amy gets immunity and gets over. The State still got two convictions out of it. And Liz is going to be a lifer. It's not the perfect resolution, but in most crimes you seldom get that anyway. As the Clermont prosecutor said, Amy is not to be viewed as a hero by any means. But, a deal is a deal, and when you make it, you should live up to it.

Plus, there is another thing to consider here- allowing the Mason County case to go forward here could have a chilling effect on future grants of immunity. You may have a defendant who has some valuable information but won't strike a deal because he's afraid that the state will go back on its agreement.

[gae]

So sorry, Lewbaby.

I disagree. She is scum. Does not deserve deal. Death penalty, anyone?

BTW, we have no words that can't be posted.

[Lew]

So let's get this straight- you believe that it's entirely proper for the government to make a deal with a defendant, she follows through with her end of the deal, and then the government decides to go ahead and prosecute her anyway? Angels and Ministers of Grace defend us...

I never said she wasn't scum. But that's irrelevant to whether a deal is enforceable (most defendants who enter into immunity deals tend to not be of the highest character, that's why they're a defendant in the first place). Now I'll grant you, the Clermont prosecutor should have gotten it in writing, but nevertheless he went on record as stating that Mason County said they wouldn't prosecute, and I've never heard anyone from Mason County saying that was inaccurate.

So much for Gae being the anti-Big Government right-winger....you know, you keep this up, and you're heading for a smacked bottom....

[gae]

Originally posted by Lew:
[QB]So let's get this straight- you believe that it's entirely proper for the government to make a deal with a defendant, she follows through with her end of the deal, and then the government decides to go ahead and prosecute her anyway? Angels and Ministers of Grace defend us...

I never said she wasn't scum. But that's irrelevant to whether a deal is enforceable (most defendants who enter into immunity deals tend to not be of the highest character, that's why they're a defendant in the first place). Now I'll grant you, the Clermont prosecutor should have gotten it in writing, but nevertheless he went on record as stating that Mason County said they wouldn't prosecute, and I've never heard anyone from Mason County saying that was inaccurate.

So much for Gae being the anti-Big Government right-winger....you know, you keep this up, and you're heading for a smacked bottom....p

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You misunderstand, Lewbaby. Let her loose, and let justice be what it will.

Vigilantie justice? Maybe the world was better when we took care of things on our own with the damned gubmit getting involved.

[LanDroid]

WTF do we need the Constitution for? It guarantees a trial, which vigilantes don't need. Sweet!

I'd like Lew's thoughts on Ollie North. As I recall, he rec'd a deal for immunity from prosecution, used it as cover to lie to Congress, and couldn't be prosecuted for perjury due to that immunity. Sweet deal, and now he's a hero who talks about other heroes.

[Lew]

I don't know about the inner workings of Ollie's deal, but I can tell you that, in my experience with immunity deals, there is always a qualifier that you have to testify truthfully (and, consistent with what you've already told them you would testify to). Under normal circumstances, when the defendant lies, the deal is off and it becomes open-season on him.

Which, in that case, I don't have a problem. What did I say earlier? A deal is a deal. Both sides should have to comply with their respective terms.

I would presume that Ollie's deal contained a few more perks than just your run-of-the-mill immunity agreement. But in answer to your question, Lan, I would never agree with or support any deal that allowed for perjury.