Breaking News:Flynn Case Being Dropped

[Levant]

So, as i pointed out, for Flynn now to say he is not guilty may be perjury, as he pled guilty under oath. Twice.

So, in addition to being sentenced for the felony to which he already pled guilty, he may also be held in contempt of court for perjury. That's going to earn him a bit of jail time, even if he only gets probation for the original felony.

Are you suggesting that anyone who pleads guilty and then claims they are not should be prosecuted for perjury? There are an awful lot of minorities who were railroaded into guilty pleas who will be disappointed if that's the case.

Inadequate counsel is usually a problem for the indigent who either rely on barely present or overworked public counsel who have incentive to cut deals or no counsel at all.

It’s not a problem for an elitist who hired an extremely expensive and well regarded law firm.

Then you DO agree that every person who takes a plea deal, swearing that they're guilty, and then are later proven beyond any doubt, DNA for instance, to be innocent, having pled guilty to get a few years as compared to life, should be found guilty of perjury?

I do not. I think that there needs to be evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or serious process issues in order support it. That didn’t happen here.

It most certainly did happen in the Flynn case.

But in Rodney Roberts' case, there's no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct so he should go to jail for perjury for saying he was guilty? His rights were not violated, there was no claim of misconduct by his attorneys or the prosecution. Back to jail for that one, right?

 

[colfax_m]

So, as i pointed out, for Flynn now to say he is not guilty may be perjury, as he pled guilty under oath. Twice.

So, in addition to being sentenced for the felony to which he already pled guilty, he may also be held in contempt of court for perjury. That's going to earn him a bit of jail time, even if he only gets probation for the original felony.

Are you suggesting that anyone who pleads guilty and then claims they are not should be prosecuted for perjury? There are an awful lot of minorities who were railroaded into guilty pleas who will be disappointed if that's the case.

Inadequate counsel is usually a problem for the indigent who either rely on barely present or overworked public counsel who have incentive to cut deals or no counsel at all.

It’s not a problem for an elitist who hired an extremely expensive and well regarded law firm.

Then you DO agree that every person who takes a plea deal, swearing that they're guilty, and then are later proven beyond any doubt, DNA for instance, to be innocent, having pled guilty to get a few years as compared to life, should be found guilty of perjury?

I do not. I think that there needs to be evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or serious process issues in order support it. That didn’t happen here.

It most certainly did happen in the Flynn case.

But in Rodney Roberts' case, there's no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct so he should go to jail for perjury for saying he was guilty? His rights were not violated, there was no claim of misconduct by his attorneys or the prosecution. Back to jail for that one, right?

Roberts has justifiable claim to poor representation which was a big reason that the guilty plea was thrown out. Likewise, there was new material evidence to the offense which demonstrates his innocence. No such finding has been made with Flynn.

 

[Levant]

Roberts has justifiable claim to poor representation which was a big reason that the guilty plea was thrown out. Likewise, there was new material evidence to the offense which demonstrates his innocence. No such finding has been made with Flynn.

Really? Why are you posting in a thread that you didn't even read post #1. There was a finding in the Flynn case.