4 ms·

In this case, the charges were clearly bogus, and they were dropped in the end (except for 1). It's not the same as facing a real conviction threat for somethin

In this case, the charges were clearly bogus, and they were dropped in the end (except for 1). It's not the same as facing a real conviction threat for something you are clearly guilty of.

Fuxy 12y ago
The treat of financial ruin is the same though. Regardless of how bogus the charges may be lawyers are expensive and it's not like if 44 out of 45 charges are bogus they need to pay 44/45 of the defendants attorneys fees. This is just like throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. It should be illegal.
- benbou09 12y ago
  I agree. The pro bono lawyer is the real good guy, here.
rhino369 12y ago
If he were left to decipher the mess of laws and charges himself, I'd agree that it is improper. But once charged you either get a lawyer or a federal public defender[1]. Even if the attorney didn't know if the stalking charges were going to stick, the lawyer would know the "440 years" isn't accurate. That number is the max for each charge, sentenced back to back to back to .... But the federal sentencing guidelines are very easy to understand. It is essentially a matrix where you look up different factors. Also, the sentences would run at the same time. So 1 charge or 44 wouldn't really make a difference. So he was realistically facing a few years and plead down to 6 months. Not as draconian as 440 years to six months huh? My wife got a speeding ticket on a highway in a federal park. It was a reckless driving misdemeanor charge because she was going 33 over the limit. Max sentencing is like 1 year and 10k dollars. We didn't even bother getting a lawyer because they pled down to regular speeding and a fine of 330 bucks. [1]State public defender quality varies, but the feds are very good.
- Crito 12y ago
  > "[1]State public defender quality varies, but the feds are very good." Somebody who is in unfamiliar territory in this sort of situation, which would be just about everyone who isn't a lawyer, very likely would not know that. This makes the threat of financial ruination effective, even if financial ruination isn't actually their only option.

In this case, the charges were clearly bogus, and they were dropped in the end (except for 1). It's not the same as facing a real conviction threat for something you are clearly guilty of.

Fuxy 12y ago

The treat of financial ruin is the same though. Regardless of how bogus the charges may be lawyers are expensive and it's not like if 44 out of 45 charges are bogus they need to pay 44/45 of the defendants attorneys fees. This is just like throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. It should be illegal.

benbou09 12y ago
I agree. The pro bono lawyer is the real good guy, here.

rhino369 12y ago

If he were left to decipher the mess of laws and charges himself, I'd agree that it is improper. But once charged you either get a lawyer or a federal public defender[1]. Even if the attorney didn't know if the stalking charges were going to stick, the lawyer would know the "440 years" isn't accurate. That number is the max for each charge, sentenced back to back to back to .... But the federal sentencing guidelines are very easy to understand. It is essentially a matrix where you look up different factors. Also, the sentences would run at the same time. So 1 charge or 44 wouldn't really make a difference. So he was realistically facing a few years and plead down to 6 months. Not as draconian as 440 years to six months huh? My wife got a speeding ticket on a highway in a federal park. It was a reckless driving misdemeanor charge because she was going 33 over the limit. Max sentencing is like 1 year and 10k dollars. We didn't even bother getting a lawyer because they pled down to regular speeding and a fine of 330 bucks. [1]State public defender quality varies, but the feds are very good.

Crito 12y ago
> "[1]State public defender quality varies, but the feds are very good." Somebody who is in unfamiliar territory in this sort of situation, which would be just about everyone who isn't a lawyer, very likely would not know that. This makes the threat of financial ruination effective, even if financial ruination isn't actually their only option.