Quote:
|
And sometimes when the public wants a conviction they will twist the facts to get one.
|
That's why we have juries and judges and appeals.
Quote:
|
Of course it is. You are applying your experience to all cases. How often in your opinion are police officers correct about their assessment of their cases?
|
In this instance we were discussing how many times a DA would go against the recommendations of the investigating officer in terms of charging someone other than what they recommended. I would say never, never heard it happen even one time. In terms of how often is the officer correct? I'd guess 99% of the time. My area never had a conviction overturned, so ours was 100%. However, I heard of cases in other areas where they were wrong. But it was rare. However, in LA there were rampant rumors about fake and "put together" cases. That just shows the importance of management and oversight.
Quote:
|
But they were not laundering money. Some crimes like murder do have conspiracy charges associated with them. But I have never heard of conspiracy to buy drugs. I could be wrong, but I do not believe you can be arrested for waiting for a drug dealer, which is why police wait until the moment of exchange to bust a deal and make arrests.
|
It differs by state and drug cases were not my area, however if someone had given a sample and was in the midst of a larger deal you could make a case for a felony. The reason they wait is because they want a larger case and penalty.
Quote:
|
Here is a case study for you. Once I was walking down the street with a friend. HE saw a police officer and yelled "run!" HE had his reasons for that. I don't know why, but I did run. I just reacted. I wasn't thinking clearly. I just started to run because of the sudden rush of adrenaline. But I wasn't guilty of anything.
|
Ok, did you follow that uo by using a gun to kidnap someone, steal their car and then run a road block?
Quote:
|
Let us assume that there was a drug deal happening at the time of the officer's death (which there wasn't). According to your definition, if someone is participating in a felony which results in the death of an officer, they are a murderer. This is according to your definition. Regardless of her level of participation, she was still committing a crime which supposedly resulted in a murder. So thus she is a murderer. So why would she be released before serving her full term if her participation in that felony resulted in murder, thereby making her one? Even if Tefaro had more of a hand than her in setting up the deal, she was still committing a felony by assisting them and being a part of the purchase. It doesn't follow.
|
Actually them being a murderer while commiting a felony isn't my definition, but that of almost every state in the union. I was just making the case that he was involved in a felony. In terms of her, she could be labled a murderer as well. In terms of why her penalty was less harsh. She didn't have a criminal record, she wasn't found with the gun in her possession, she didn't participate in a kidnapping, etc etc. Plus on appeal it was apparent her conviction would be overturned. It was an old case and the DA didn't want to go through another trial with all of the new contradictions that had come up.