Levant
Platinum Member
It most certainly did happen in the Flynn case.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.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.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.
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?
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?