3 ms·

The prosecutors said they may file charges later (according to the article). They may just want to keep from revealing the details as long as possible -- but c

The prosecutors said they may file charges later (according to the article). They may just want to keep from revealing the details as long as possible -- but could re-file the same charges years later, right before the Statute of Limitations.

bsder 10y ago
This actually bothers me greatly. Not carrying through once charges are filed should be equivalent to "not guilty".
- jemfinch 10y ago
  So, in a timeline this: * "We have an eyewitness! File the charges." * "Our eyewitness recanted, dismiss." * "We now have DNA evidence, refile the charges." You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Many countries solve that: You can't present the exact same case again after you filed to dismiss... ...unless a major change has happened, such as a massive amount of new incriminating evidence.
  - bsder 10y ago
    > You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward? Actually, yes. If you filed a case on something so flimsy and it collapses, the case should get dismissed. It would sure make prosecutors go the extra mile to make sure that there is concrete evidence before filing charges. Simply filing charges can destroy someone's life. The prosecution should have to put something at risk when they do so.
  - BearGoesChirp 10y ago
    Should've waited for the DNA evidence. The idea we convict with just eyewitness testimony alone is enough of a nightmare. Also, this is how it happens already if they go through the entire trial. * "We have an eyewitness. File the charges!" * "Jury finds the defendant not guilty because they didn't think the eyewitness' testimony was proof beyond a reasonable doubt." * "We found DNA evidence and even a video that someone recorded but didn't admit to just now." Double jeopardy means they can't go ahead, no matter what evidence they find. This is just extending that a little further, which I see as a good thing.
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Well, they're requesting the case be dismissed without prejudice. The judge doesn't have to grant the request. Whether it will be dismissed with or without prejudice remains to be seen

bsder 10y ago

This actually bothers me greatly. Not carrying through once charges are filed should be equivalent to "not guilty".

jemfinch 10y ago
So, in a timeline this: * "We have an eyewitness! File the charges." * "Our eyewitness recanted, dismiss." * "We now have DNA evidence, refile the charges." You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward?
- kuschku 10y ago
  Many countries solve that: You can't present the exact same case again after you filed to dismiss... ...unless a major change has happened, such as a massive amount of new incriminating evidence.
- bsder 10y ago
  > You actually think the trial should not be allowed to go forward? Actually, yes. If you filed a case on something so flimsy and it collapses, the case should get dismissed. It would sure make prosecutors go the extra mile to make sure that there is concrete evidence before filing charges. Simply filing charges can destroy someone's life. The prosecution should have to put something at risk when they do so.
- BearGoesChirp 10y ago
  Should've waited for the DNA evidence. The idea we convict with just eyewitness testimony alone is enough of a nightmare. Also, this is how it happens already if they go through the entire trial. * "We have an eyewitness. File the charges!" * "Jury finds the defendant not guilty because they didn't think the eyewitness' testimony was proof beyond a reasonable doubt." * "We found DNA evidence and even a video that someone recorded but didn't admit to just now." Double jeopardy means they can't go ahead, no matter what evidence they find. This is just extending that a little further, which I see as a good thing.
umanwizard 10y ago
Well, they're requesting the case be dismissed without prejudice. The judge doesn't have to grant the request. Whether it will be dismissed with or without prejudice remains to be seen