“A dog is that which is recognized as a dog by other dogs.”
-Mark Twain
-the ultimate definition.
Is this an actual, factual assertion or are you sharing your opinion masked as such in GQ?
If factual, um, cite?
Though not a lawyer, I worked in association with the California court system from the 1970’s until fairly recently and that phrase was in use many years ago. I don’t think it is related to the 3 strikes law per se. I do recall it being used a lot with plea bargained charge dismissals. IIRC it also was used more often after California went to a determinate sentencing law, which specified prison term duration in more exact terms than previously was the case. That law precipitated a lot more plea bargaining in my opinion, since there was less leeway for judges to wiggle around in with sentencing.
In the case ofAlabama v. Gambini, the DA eventually drops all charges ‘in the interest of justice’ after evidence shows the defendant was likely innocent.
Opinion.
In Canada (IIRC, IANAL) charges can be dismissed with or without prejudice, or stayed. I.e. in some cases the charges may be re-laid at a later date if more evidence comes to light.
I guess the question is - why this decision? If the evdence did not sustain the charges, why even reach the point where the court rules as such? Why not just withdraw charges? Or is that not how law works in California?
The logic that “FoJ” means guilty but not convicted, is the same logic that “if the police arrested you, you must be guilty.” Usually true, but Usually does not equal Always. Not even close.
I’ve heard “furtherance of justice” used in referring to money seized from bad guys and then used to pay for police operations (like if they need big bucks to flash during an undercover drug bust), such as in a “Furtherance of Justice Fund,” but not as a description of the basis for dismissal of a criminal case. That would be “in the interests of justice” here.