As CA AG, Kamala Harris appealed dismissal of criminal case where prosecutor fabricated evidence

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Prosecutors protect themselves first: Column

When you're charged with a crime, you're in a tough spot. As soon as charges are filed, you're faced with the necessity of either (1) negotiating a plea bargain, which means you'll plead guilty to something or other; or (2) going to trial, where you risk a much more serious conviction if the jury doesn't believe you. Facts are often confused. The prosecution has access to law enforcement for its investigations. You'll have to pay for yours.

It's a big enough challenge when everybody plays things straight. But what about when you've got a prosecutor willing to lie? Then things are worse. And given that prosecutors often face no consequences for misconduct, it's not surprising that some are willing to lie about it.

That's what happened in the California case of The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District didn't buy Harris's argument, and upheld the dismissal of charges. That means the defendant went free...

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

Prepping for 2020 WH run? Kamala Harris meets with Hillary Clinton’s ‘inner circle’ in the Hamptons

Just when you think there's no more dirt coming out of the corrupt DNC after Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Lyndon Johnson being a Klansman (per declassified JFK files), Donna Brazile's tell-all exposing Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Podesta brothers, etc. this comes out. Who's next in the DNC to be exposed?

 

[Tax Man]

Kamala was obligated to prosecute. Nothing ethical about it, just the wheels of justice grinding on.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Russian fake news

Right, the Great Soviet Court of Appeal of the 5th District of the Democratic People's Republic of California:

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

 

[Correll]

Prosecutors protect themselves first: Column

When you're charged with a crime, you're in a tough spot. As soon as charges are filed, you're faced with the necessity of either (1) negotiating a plea bargain, which means you'll plead guilty to something or other; or (2) going to trial, where you risk a much more serious conviction if the jury doesn't believe you. Facts are often confused. The prosecution has access to law enforcement for its investigations. You'll have to pay for yours.

It's a big enough challenge when everybody plays things straight. But what about when you've got a prosecutor willing to lie? Then things are worse. And given that prosecutors often face no consequences for misconduct, it's not surprising that some are willing to lie about it.

That's what happened in the California case of The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District didn't buy Harris's argument, and upheld the dismissal of charges. That means the defendant went free...

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

Prepping for 2020 WH run? Kamala Harris meets with Hillary Clinton’s ‘inner circle’ in the Hamptons

Just when you think there's no more dirt coming out of the corrupt DNC after Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Lyndon Johnson being a Klansman (per declassified JFK files), Donna Brazile's tell-all exposing Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Podesta brothers, etc. this comes out. Who's next in the DNC to be exposed?

Posted by a Russian agent provocateur, residing in the Russian far east.

Liked to the USA today, hardly a russian front.


Your deflection is noted. ARe you really supporting this person?

 

[westwall]

Kamala was obligated to prosecute. Nothing ethical about it, just the wheels of justice grinding on.

It was UN ethical for her to appeal the Judges ruling.

 

[westwall]

Prosecutors protect themselves first: Column

When you're charged with a crime, you're in a tough spot. As soon as charges are filed, you're faced with the necessity of either (1) negotiating a plea bargain, which means you'll plead guilty to something or other; or (2) going to trial, where you risk a much more serious conviction if the jury doesn't believe you. Facts are often confused. The prosecution has access to law enforcement for its investigations. You'll have to pay for yours.

It's a big enough challenge when everybody plays things straight. But what about when you've got a prosecutor willing to lie? Then things are worse. And given that prosecutors often face no consequences for misconduct, it's not surprising that some are willing to lie about it.

That's what happened in the California case of The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District didn't buy Harris's argument, and upheld the dismissal of charges. That means the defendant went free...

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

Prepping for 2020 WH run? Kamala Harris meets with Hillary Clinton’s ‘inner circle’ in the Hamptons

Just when you think there's no more dirt coming out of the corrupt DNC after Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Lyndon Johnson being a Klansman (per declassified JFK files), Donna Brazile's tell-all exposing Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the Podesta brothers, etc. this comes out. Who's next in the DNC to be exposed?

Posted by a Russian agent provocateur, residing in the Russian far east.

Liked to the USA today, hardly a russian front.


Your deflection is noted. ARe you really supporting this person?

it is disgusting. The newest senator from Nevada, Masto, when she was AG filed a false criminal complaint against Brian krolicki to prevent him running against her boss Reid. They are all cut from the same criminal mold.

"After the hearing, Besser offered harsh words for Masto’s office. She called the prosecution a “partisan witch-hunt.”

“I think the attorney general, at the very least, owes me an apology,” Besser said. “Catharine Cortez Masto should be ashamed of herself and what she allowed her office to do.”

Charges dismissed against Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki

 

[Zorro!]

Kamala was obligated to prosecute. Nothing ethical about it, just the wheels of justice grinding on.

That is such nonsense. It's difficult for me to believe you actually believe that.

The People v. Efrain Velasco-Palacios. In the course of negotiating a plea bargain with the defendant, a Kern County prosecutor committed what the California appeals court called "outrageous government misconduct."

What prosecuting attorney Robert Murray did was produce a translated transcript of the defendant's interrogation to which he had added a fraudulent confession. The defense attorney got a copy of the audio tape of the interrogation, but it "ended abruptly." Eventually, Murray admitted to falsifying the transcript, presumably in the hopes of either coercing a plea deal, or ensuring a victory at trial.

When the trial judge found out, charges against the defendant were dismissed. Incredibly, the State of California, via Attorney General Kamala Harris, decided to appeal the case. The state's key argument: That putting a fake confession in the transcript wasn't "outrageous" because it didn't involve physical brutality, like chaining someone to a radiator and beating him with a hose.

Well, no. It just involved an officer of the court knowingly producing a fraudulent document in order to secure an illicit advantage. If Harris really thinks that knowingly producing a fraudulent document to secure an illicit advantage isn't "outrageous," then perhaps she slept through her legal ethics courses.

Do you know NOTHING about basic ethics?

"Well, the Kamala Harris campaign for president is now officially kaput, and I know we're all brokenhearted about that. So Tucker Carlson had some liberal commentator on his show last night and he was asked, why did she fail?

"His answer may surprise you. Actually, no, it won't.

"He said it was because of racism.

"Yeah, not because Harris' campaign was a disorganized sh*tshow from day 1. Not because she's a miserable POS who treated her staff like dirt. Not because Tulsi Gabbard basically DESTROYED her in one of the early debates. Or, it couldn't have been because she was just a crappy candidate? No, it because evil racists refused to vote for the black lady.

"The liberal guy spun a big sob story about people not wanting to vote for blacks and how the Republicans have hardly any black candidates running for office, and managed to somehow associate Trump with all of it, like he caused it all, and I'm thinking, wait, this is a *Democratic* primary campaign, right? So the question he should be asking is not, why is America so racist, but rather, why are *Democrats* so racist?

"It's not a GOP election. It's a *Democratic* election. So the Democrats have a real problem: how to motivate their pasty white, racist base to vote for their diverse candidates. Because the Democratic candidates leading the pack are (a) very, very rich, and (b) very, very white. Kind of ironic, actually. Witness the party of diversity."