No
It's just standard operating procedure.
I'm appalled these bozos are so ignorant about how the world works.
a case where a defendant got a plea deal for testifying, and the prosecutor didn't disclose the deal to the other attorney?
No
It's just standard operating procedure.
I'm appalled these bozos are so ignorant about how the world works.
That's also the second thing the defense lawyer will ask (after he asks for his down payment)..."Have you got anything to trade I can take to the ADA?"
That's your straw man not mine.
The American Dental Association?
![]()
Well, I went through the first three pages of this thread so far, and it's turning into another Zimmerman thread. You guys are unbelievable.
Yup, I actually did attempt to set someone up but in the end I couldn't go through with it because I knew that if the word got out I'd be swimming with the fishes.
To answer your question, yes they use confidential informants as well and they aren't always obligated to disclose the CI. For instance:
A drug dealer keeps his stash at X address
The informant tells them about it.
The have a car drive by and notice "su ious activity"
They stake the place out and get video of drugs going in/out.
They take the video to a judge for a search warrant and bust the drug dealer.
Because they corroborated the information from the informant they don't have to disclose the informant because they don't directly use his information at trial.
Mouse was probably just dry right then...![]()
I'm not taking that strawy position, dumb
I'm determined to keep exposing you as an ignorant fool because it's solid entertainment for me......much more fun than the serious conversation I attempted to have with you in the beginning of this thread.
It's not hard to google plea deals and find out what prosecutors have offered in the past.
I haven't found any myself regarding murder charges getting dropped in exchange for information on drug dealers. Please link one, thanks.
Considering that the comparison was brought up by the OP in the second post 7 minutes after the thread, it's not really that surprising is it? Or did you not read that far?
gfy
Seriously, then feel free come up with your own theory why they would let a capital murderer cop a plea to drug possession and a 2 year term.
Nobody is saying informants are never given deals.
You're too stupid to realize that.
If its kind its not. Its less than $300 an oz. More than what i would be willing to pay but if its not schwag, it will cost more.
Well what are you saying then, dumbass?
He is saying that they might allow drug dealers/thieves/etc to snitch, but not murderers.
There were two eye witnesses and they have the gun and ballistics and a dead guy.
Anyone have a better theory why they would let a capital murderer cop to a possession charge with a 2 year sentence?
And murderers snitch all the time...two guys rob a store, clerk gets shot, (both can be charged with capital murder) one guy flips on the other, one guy gets the needle, the flipper gets a reduced charge (not capital murder) and jail time.
The prosecutor simply doesn't have a solid enough case to charge him with murder and wanted an easy conviction for the drugs. Regardless of the drug deal, I'm betting the dropped charge is due to castle doctrine, if I read it right that the assault took place in the alleged's garage.
It's hilarious you think you have enough information in a 5 paragraph article to convict him of capital murder though.
Seriously, your stupid theory is entertaining to read.
Because that's exactly what happened in this case.
Stupid.
Was this in his property?
I can't believe CC got yall to post enough in this thread to go 9 pages deep. It's an obvious troll job.
Doubtful, imo.
I think he's just stupid.
Wearing a hoodie today, TBH. Not too scared for my life though.
I'm saying murder charges don't simply get dropped in exchange for info.
I'm also saying you are an ignorant dumb .
lol judge
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)