Maybe it was legal advice. They copped a plea to avoid getting themselves dragged through court.
Actually, I was wondering when and how the company’s legal team were going to realize they’re not covered by the Trump’s sovereign immunity and decided to start taking the appropriate actions to prevent their disbarment and own prosecution.
Trump has been openly soliciting and accepting bribes. It’s beyond imagining thst a no bid contract for over ten times what the original cost estimate was didn’t include a kick back. You can grift all you want, so long as Trump gets his taste.
Update: the presiding judge has dismissed the case against Hearn, with prejudice, meaning that he cannot be charged again with this egregious crime.
In a scathing order issued Thursday, Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman blasted the government’s actions.
“Because of the extraordinary possibility that Mr. Hearn will nonetheless face a meritless, politically motivated prosecution, the Court has an obligation to protect him from the uncertainty that a dismissal without prejudice entails, and from what, objectively, would be harassment.”
Well said, Judge Edelman!
Hooray! One moral victory against a criminal regime. I hope Hearn launches a lawsuit. He’d have pretty strong grounds for it.
Yes, Hearn should sue if that’s a possibility.
In the meantime: remember that the Senate confirms judges, and if we want more like Edelman and fewer like Aileen Cannon, we need to vote Democrats in!
At first I thought your emoji was a toaster with a toaster waffle in it.
More waffles, yay!
Looked like Kleenex to me (also, a fax machine).
Yeah, that ‘ballot box’ emoji has flaws. Either tissue box or waffle is related, I guess: some people will “waffle” over their vote, and many others will feel like crying. (I’m a firm believer in Vote Blue No Matter Who, but do realize it can encompass some less-than-ideal choices.)
How do we reconcile these posts?
This is a very unusual situation.
The government decided to dismiss the case. The issue than became whether it would be dismissed “without prejudice” (meaning it can be refiled, as would be typical) or “with prejudice” (meaning it can’t be refiled).
The judge took the extraordinary step of dismissing with prejudice, due to Trump’s outrageous commentary on the subject; so I was wrong that a judge can’t dismiss a case with prejudice. But the judge couldn’t have done so unless the government first moved to dismiss the case.
Here’s the order.
That’s definitely true. As far as I can tell though, a judge can dismiss criminal charges with prejudice for several reasons even if the prosecution hasn’t dropped the case. For example, statute of limitations, prosecutorial misconduct, or a violation of Constitutional rights that taints a significant portion of the evidence. Let me know if I’m wrong about that.
I think you’re probably right that this judge wouldn’t have dismissed the case with prejudice if the government hadn’t dropped it. I’m actually not sure what would have happened, since the grand jury that referred the case was not presented with accurate information. Would there have been hearings about whether relevant evidence was deliberately withheld? A new grand jury? A pre-trial dismissal?
I don’t doubt you. Starting with that.
Many years ago in Galveston TX I got a judge to dismiss a misdemeanor crime with prejudice. Judge just wrote “with prejudice” in ink on the boilerplate proposed order dismissing the case.
I wanted this so I could immediately have the case expunged for my client which I could not do if it was not dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise client would have to wait 2 years until SOL ran.
I think this held up. Prosecution fought expungement and won (have to wait for SOL regardless of the type of dismissal), but I don’t think the merits of the with prejudice was a problem.
Note: I only mention Galveston to convey small town/I know that Judge kind of legal system. Anyways, just reminded me of that.
Late: To be clear, I have no idea if State/Federal or Misdemeanor/Felony matters to these situations. I don’t do criminal law.
I get in trouble when I’m loose with language. There are always exceptions and permutations whenever discussing a legal principle, as you know.
Yes you are correct. Typically, when you file a motion to dismiss, you are stipulating that the allegations can be proven; your issue is with some technicality, like the statute of limitations has run.
What I was trying to address was the perception that some people have that a defendant can argue to the judge that the case should be dismissed for “lack of evidence”. Beyond a basic minimum, the test of the evidence is for a jury to decide, and usually a judge doesn’t have the authority to drop a case because “a witness is clearly lying” or “there isn’t any proof to substantiate a witness’ testimony”.
This is contrary to most people’s understanding of how the process works.
Now the remedy for this is to suppress that evidence, not dismiss the charges.
There is an ethical obligation (I know, I know) for the prosecutor not to present evidence that they know to be false (which explains why this US attorney dismissed the charges), but what you are essentially describing is every defendant’s position: the grand jury wasn’t presented with accurate information.
But a grand jury just issues the indictment. A trial is to test whether the information was ultimately accurate (and, in case it’s not clear, the jury in the trial is not the same group as the grand jury)
The prosecution only presents their side of the case to the grand jury. That’s why it’s so easy to get the indictment.
So, no, I don’t expect hearings. I expect a jury trial.
I just don’t see it. I guess if there could be a showing that the prosecutor deliberately presented evidence that they knew to be false, there could be some extraordinary remedy.
But if a witness, for example, lied during their grand jury testimony., the trial attorney should pounce all over that at trial. That’s how the adversarial process is supposed to work.
Of course, every case has some point in time where there’s insufficient evidence. But it’s always possible that more evidence will emerge later.