Originally Posted by
fredgarvin7
So you think that no prosecutor anywhere, anytime, realized that he was not good enough to win a case, or would not take a chance on messing up a perfect record for political reasons.
You told me to read more when you first started arguing at me. Please show me things to read. Otherwise how am I to believe the rest of your argument? I appreciate your attempt to attack my level of reading, but I'd really like you to back up your claim, which I'll quote here:
Haven't you ever heard of prosecutors with political ambitions accepting pleas on winnable cases because they want a "perfect conviction record" to tout when they run for office. If you haven't, I suggest you read more.
So, I'd like you to point me to a case of a prosecutor pleading down "winnable" cases because of "political ambitions." You imply this is so common that I can find it in my local paper, but I don't see it there.
As far as "proving" the DA had an "unwinnable" case... the prosecutor made a deal and plead the case down. There you go. Why else would that happen? And why do you insist on being so angry? It's entirely unnecessary.