14 ms·

From the article: Paul Cassell, a lawyer for victims’ family members, said he plans to ask the federal judge on the case to reject the deal and “simply set the

From the article: Paul Cassell, a lawyer for victims’ family members, said he plans to ask the federal judge on the case to reject the deal and “simply set the matter for a public trial, so that all the facts surrounding the case will be aired in a fair and open forum before a jury.” Hard to disagree

credit_guy 2y ago
> Hard to disagree But hard to agree too. How exactly can you prevent someone from pleading guilty?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 5636588 2y ago
  Judge needs to approve a plea deal. See Hunter's Biden case.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dboreham 2y ago
      > vast category of other crimes he may have committed Which curiously have never been charged nor manifested in any form besides conspiracy theory disinformation.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        The prosecutors who would have been filing those charges were instead offering to grant immunity from prosecution for them in exchange for a sweetheart plea deal.
- skissane 2y ago
  The judge is allowed to reject the plea deal. At which point the defendant can either withdraw their guilty plea and try their luck with a jury - or maintain it and accept whatever sentence the judge wants to impose-which could potentially be a lot harsher than what was agreed in the plea deal. Unlikely relevant to this case, but judges are legally required to reject guilty pleas if they conclude that the defendant is being coerced, doesn’t understand what they are pleading to and the likely consequences of their plea, lacks competence to plea (due to severe mental illness/etc), or that the plea lacks a “factual basis” (e.g. if the conduct alleged by the prosecution and admitted by the defendant fails to legally constitute the elements of the crime; or if the judge has good reason to believe that the conduct in question never actually happened despite both prosecution and defence agreeing that it did) On the last point-the prosecution is allowed to offer the defendant a plea deal for a lesser included offense, but not an unrelated crime that doesn’t correspond with what they are accused of doing-e.g. you can plead drug charges down to lesser drug charges, but you can’t plead drug charges down to possession of stolen goods if there is no evidence anything was actually stolen-in such a scenario the judge is supposed to reject the guilty plea
- alistairSH 2y ago
  You don’t. But the judge can reject the plea deal that’s leading to the guilty plea. Boeing isn’t pleading guilty in a vacuum - there’s a deal in place. Judge can reject that now, wait until after guilty plea and impose whatever sentence he wants (within law), or accept the deal as-is.
sandworm101 2y ago
But who is to prosecute this? If the prosecution and the defendant have already cut a deal, and therefore neither party wants a trial, what is that trial going to look like? They might simply agree to not bring up certain facts or make certain arguments. What the families want is a different prosecutor, one that will do what they want them to do. But prosecutors work for and represent the government, not victims.
- watwut 2y ago
  Prosecutors are not supposed to drop the ball intentionally if the judge rejects the deal. They are supposed to work the case. Practically, their career would be affected by it too.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    There are nuances between jurisdictions, but while a US judge can reject a plea deal they generally cannot reject a guilty plea. A judge cannot force a trial between parties that don't want one. And a trial isn't really possible where the parties agree the facts. The judge can certainly impose a sentence different than that which was agreed between the parties, but any such punishment would have to be based on the agreed facts/charges/pleadings. If the prosecution decides to only charge a lesser offense, the judge's power would be limited to the maximum penalty associated with those reduced charges.
    - anikom15 2y ago
      Hunter Biden’s guilty plea got rejected.
      - sandworm101 2y ago
        No. His plea deal was rejected. That is not the same thing.
        qingcharles 2y ago
ActionHank 2y ago
If it does go to trial it would be great for people behind this to be directly tried for their criminal actions as well. The reality is that a company is on trial for the actions of individuals and if there is no follow through on that it will not change anything. I doubt it goes to trial as I am 99% sure that the judge will rubber stamp the whole thing because the US is a corporate driven hellscape where peasants are accountable, but wealthy individuals and corporations are not.
- spacecadet 2y ago
  1000%
  - spacecadet 2y ago
    LOL downvotes, delusional capital apologists.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      1. People can disagree for other reasons than being an apologist. 2. Saying "1000%" like that is a bad comment, so don't assume the people that downvoted even disagree with you.
      - spacecadet 2y ago
        I know. Not sure whats worse, the rules or assuming I needed your explanation without being asked. Downvote away, its all a social experiment anyways...
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        So you were complaining about the wrong thing on purpose? Even if I believe you, that's a bad social experiment. Stop wasting people's time.
        2y ago
gunapologist99 2y ago
This is for a criminal case. The victims don't play a prosecutorial role here and are not actually parties to this case. The appropriate venue for the victims is a civil jury trial (lawsuit), where recovery of losses is possible because the victims then become party to the case (plaintiff). The reason this lawyer is requesting this is so that the government will be forced to lay its cards on the table during trial, which provide much stronger proof/evidence of Boeing's wrongdoing (which otherwise would likely be much harder to discover), and make it far more likely for a jury to award a huge award to the plaintiffs. So this is completely rational on the part of the lawyer, but the judge doesn't have to go along with it at all, and might not.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  > This is for a criminal case. The victims don't play a prosecutorial role here and are not actually parties to this case. The desires of the victim in making formal accusations (“pressing charges”) are certainly considered by the prosecutors even if the victim is not a party to the trial. I’d image the prosecutor takes it into account in other situations too, like the terms of accepting a guilty plea. Do you have a link to something that suggests otherwise?
- philwelch 2y ago
  Is a trial really the only mechanism by which the government could share that evidence with civil plaintiffs?
kingofheroes 2y ago
Juries can be manipulated. Allowing this to go to public trial risks the danger of Boeing getting off lighter or not facing punishment at all.
- lolinder 2y ago
  The punishment in the plea deal isn't even a wrist slap. $244 million is not even a half a percent of their annual revenue of $77.8 billion—it's literally a rounding error.
- spopejoy 2y ago
  When it comes to corporate malfeasance, juries seem more inclined to punish malfeasance than judges alone. Most corps try to avoid jury trials.

credit_guy 2y ago

> Hard to disagree But hard to agree too. How exactly can you prevent someone from pleading guilty?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
5636588 2y ago
Judge needs to approve a plea deal. See Hunter's Biden case.
- philwelch 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dboreham 2y ago
    > vast category of other crimes he may have committed Which curiously have never been charged nor manifested in any form besides conspiracy theory disinformation.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      The prosecutors who would have been filing those charges were instead offering to grant immunity from prosecution for them in exchange for a sweetheart plea deal.
skissane 2y ago
The judge is allowed to reject the plea deal. At which point the defendant can either withdraw their guilty plea and try their luck with a jury - or maintain it and accept whatever sentence the judge wants to impose-which could potentially be a lot harsher than what was agreed in the plea deal. Unlikely relevant to this case, but judges are legally required to reject guilty pleas if they conclude that the defendant is being coerced, doesn’t understand what they are pleading to and the likely consequences of their plea, lacks competence to plea (due to severe mental illness/etc), or that the plea lacks a “factual basis” (e.g. if the conduct alleged by the prosecution and admitted by the defendant fails to legally constitute the elements of the crime; or if the judge has good reason to believe that the conduct in question never actually happened despite both prosecution and defence agreeing that it did) On the last point-the prosecution is allowed to offer the defendant a plea deal for a lesser included offense, but not an unrelated crime that doesn’t correspond with what they are accused of doing-e.g. you can plead drug charges down to lesser drug charges, but you can’t plead drug charges down to possession of stolen goods if there is no evidence anything was actually stolen-in such a scenario the judge is supposed to reject the guilty plea
alistairSH 2y ago
You don’t. But the judge can reject the plea deal that’s leading to the guilty plea. Boeing isn’t pleading guilty in a vacuum - there’s a deal in place. Judge can reject that now, wait until after guilty plea and impose whatever sentence he wants (within law), or accept the deal as-is.

sandworm101 2y ago

But who is to prosecute this? If the prosecution and the defendant have already cut a deal, and therefore neither party wants a trial, what is that trial going to look like? They might simply agree to not bring up certain facts or make certain arguments. What the families want is a different prosecutor, one that will do what they want them to do. But prosecutors work for and represent the government, not victims.

watwut 2y ago
Prosecutors are not supposed to drop the ball intentionally if the judge rejects the deal. They are supposed to work the case. Practically, their career would be affected by it too.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  There are nuances between jurisdictions, but while a US judge can reject a plea deal they generally cannot reject a guilty plea. A judge cannot force a trial between parties that don't want one. And a trial isn't really possible where the parties agree the facts. The judge can certainly impose a sentence different than that which was agreed between the parties, but any such punishment would have to be based on the agreed facts/charges/pleadings. If the prosecution decides to only charge a lesser offense, the judge's power would be limited to the maximum penalty associated with those reduced charges.
  - anikom15 2y ago
    Hunter Biden’s guilty plea got rejected.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      No. His plea deal was rejected. That is not the same thing.
      - qingcharles 2y ago

ActionHank 2y ago

If it does go to trial it would be great for people behind this to be directly tried for their criminal actions as well. The reality is that a company is on trial for the actions of individuals and if there is no follow through on that it will not change anything. I doubt it goes to trial as I am 99% sure that the judge will rubber stamp the whole thing because the US is a corporate driven hellscape where peasants are accountable, but wealthy individuals and corporations are not.

spacecadet 2y ago
1000%
- spacecadet 2y ago
  LOL downvotes, delusional capital apologists.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    1. People can disagree for other reasons than being an apologist. 2. Saying "1000%" like that is a bad comment, so don't assume the people that downvoted even disagree with you.
    - spacecadet 2y ago
      I know. Not sure whats worse, the rules or assuming I needed your explanation without being asked. Downvote away, its all a social experiment anyways...
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        So you were complaining about the wrong thing on purpose? Even if I believe you, that's a bad social experiment. Stop wasting people's time.
        2y ago

gunapologist99 2y ago

This is for a criminal case. The victims don't play a prosecutorial role here and are not actually parties to this case. The appropriate venue for the victims is a civil jury trial (lawsuit), where recovery of losses is possible because the victims then become party to the case (plaintiff). The reason this lawyer is requesting this is so that the government will be forced to lay its cards on the table during trial, which provide much stronger proof/evidence of Boeing's wrongdoing (which otherwise would likely be much harder to discover), and make it far more likely for a jury to award a huge award to the plaintiffs. So this is completely rational on the part of the lawyer, but the judge doesn't have to go along with it at all, and might not.

jessriedel 2y ago
> This is for a criminal case. The victims don't play a prosecutorial role here and are not actually parties to this case. The desires of the victim in making formal accusations (“pressing charges”) are certainly considered by the prosecutors even if the victim is not a party to the trial. I’d image the prosecutor takes it into account in other situations too, like the terms of accepting a guilty plea. Do you have a link to something that suggests otherwise?
philwelch 2y ago
Is a trial really the only mechanism by which the government could share that evidence with civil plaintiffs?

kingofheroes 2y ago

Juries can be manipulated. Allowing this to go to public trial risks the danger of Boeing getting off lighter or not facing punishment at all.

lolinder 2y ago
The punishment in the plea deal isn't even a wrist slap. $244 million is not even a half a percent of their annual revenue of $77.8 billion—it's literally a rounding error.
spopejoy 2y ago
When it comes to corporate malfeasance, juries seem more inclined to punish malfeasance than judges alone. Most corps try to avoid jury trials.