Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Swamp Gas' started by UFLAW81, Nov 14, 2013.
So is Meggs man enough to buck the tide ?
Was wondering the same thing. The only thing he should be asking himself is, what would I do under the exact same circumstances except that Winston is a nobody? Whatever that answer is, he needs to stick to his guns and execute.
as if we trust the TPD.......
Meggs has already said that they worry about the impact this will have on Winston's life. Could they ruin the career of a promising athlete?
They either won't charge him or the family will be paid off.
DNA evidence came out 2 weeks ago and they've done nothing.
Can you link that? That seems like an appropriate thing for a defense attorney to say about a client but not for a prosecuting attorney to say about a potential defendent. Meggs represents the state's and the victim's interests, not those of an accused rapist, no matter how good of an athlete he may be.
If he does, he will be a national hero and a local villain.
I have not seen that anywhere.
Is there really all that much stuff for Meggs to "analyze" (ie mull over) in this case?
* yes, I'm very skeptical about the whole timing of the decision.
Tallahassee is a "football" town, just ask the investigating detective.
Willie Meggs is making the decision, no grand jury. He has unbridled prosecutorial discretion.
Willie Meggs, as State Attorney, is an elected official, thus requires the votes of the people.
Perhaps someone should suggest that he disqualify himself, based on conflicting interests.
Except that . . . that could be true of all elected officials, when having to choose between the right thing, and the expeditious, self interested thing.
"Meggs has repeatedly said his office must not only present enough evidence to charge someone but determine whether there is a reasonable chance for conviction before proceeding."
I must respectfully disagree.
The State's resources, while vast, aren't infinite. SAO has to factor in for the Defendant's resources, and ability to defend the case, and more importantly, ability to tie up the SAO's resources--as part of calculating the probability of getting a conviction.
Remember the George Zimmerman case? How about Case Anthony?
2 high profile cases that cost the state boatloads of money to prosecute, only to result in full blown acquittals. The PR fallout from those were not good.
Not saying it's right, just that it must be factored in.
SAO is afterall, a political office.
This case is high profile ab initio. It is loaded. They know they can count on a fight. They know their every move will be scrutinized with a fine toothed comb. So they have to factor this in, against the probability of getting a conviction.
The potential political fallout, scrutiny, collateral damage, and resources needed to be committed to wage a long drawn out battle simply wouldn't exist, if the perp. were a nobody.
In this case, go ahead and drop it. What are the chances that JW would be CONVICTED in clowntown? I don't see anyone involved that would request a change of venue.
Sure. In a perfect world.
Justice surely must be factored in as well; but not to the exclusion of the other pertinent factors.
You're an attorney--how many cases do you take, for justices' sake alone?
Every case--private sector or public--has to be analyzed by considering many different factors--including the likelihood of prevailing. Surely more so in the private sector (as with us), but still to a lesser degree, even the SAO vis a vis high profile cases.
In the civil arena, you must always factor in the economics of a case.
But in the public arena, there are greater concerns, including maintaining the integrity of the system.
Casey Anthony and perhaps to a lessor extent Zimmerman (without the benefit of hindsight) are good examples of this. If these cases were not prosecuted, public outrage would have built to a fever pitch.
While many are very disappointed with the outcome in both, most are very grateful the cases were brought to trial.
If Meggs does not have clear and convincing reasons for not prosecuting, he will be fried in the national media like a catfish.
I suppose State Attorneys can set the standard to prosecute or not on all kinds of things, including, "can I win the trial?;" "if I do, will I still win the next election?;" "is the venire (public) against me on this one?;" "does this make me look good or not;" and "what is the right thing to do?"
I always thought that the prosecutor should simply consider whether a reasonable view of the evidence (substantial, competent evidence of guilt, of course) would support any particular case getting beyond a Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal, and if so, having met that burden, should then feel comfortable in letting the jury make the decision to convict, or to acquit.
Decision coming tomorrow at 2. If they were gonna charge him wouldnt they just arrest him and not announce a decision?
Exactly my thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry