USUALLY THE SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT TELLS THE STORY. IN THIS CASE SEVERAL NAMES WERE LEFT OFF THE SUPERCEDIGN INDICTMENT AND THEREFORE THESE FOLKS MOST LIKELY WERE THE FIRST TO GIVE STATEMENTS REGARDING THEIR INVOLVEMENT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF OTHERS. IN ESSENCE, THEY WOULD TRADE INFORMATION REGARDING THE CASE FOR THEIR OWN REDUCTION OF SENTENCE OR TO BE ELIMINATED ENTIRELY.
PLEASE RECALL IF THEY DID PLEA OUT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF PLEAS: 1). BINDING 2). NON-BINDING. USUALLY, THE NON-BINDING PLEA IS THE NORM UNLESS THE ATTORNEYS HAVE SOLID NECESSARY INFORMATION TO HELP THE PROSECUTORS OBTAIN A GULITY VERDICT.
BINDING IS THE PLEA THE THE JUDGE HAS ENDORSED OR AGREED AND NON BINDING IS A PLEA THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY OFFER BUT THEIR ARE NO GUARANTEE THE JUDGE WILL ACCEPT THE PLEA. IT IS POSSIBLE THE PROSECUTOR LEFT THE PARTIES OFF THE SUPERCEDING INDICTMENT DUE TO VALUABLE INFORMATION REGARDING OTHERS OR NEW PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS OR OTHER CRIMES. RECALL THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IS BUILT ON WITNESSES REPORTING INFORMATION ON OTHER CRIMINALS IN ORDER TO INDICT AND CONVICT. THAT IS HOW THEY OBTAIN A 98% CONVICTION RATE.
MOST OF THE TIME IF THE INFORMATION IS OBTAINED FROM A WITNESS THEY APPROACH THE PARTIES COUNSEL TO PLEA OUT THE CRIME . TRUTHFULLY THE PROSECUTORS DO NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER OR THE FUNDING TO TRY ALL OF THE CASES. THEY MUST OBTIN PLEAS TO SAVE MONEY AND MANPOWER.
MY GUESS AND THIS IS ONLY A GUESS WITHOUT ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS COMMENT-------SEVERAL ARE SINGING LIKE CANARIES! YOU FOLKS WOULD KNOW THE PARTIES BUT THAT WOULD ONLY BE MY GUESS. NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THIS COMMENT.
EITHER WAY SHOULD BE INTERESTING AND IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE MADE A LIKELY COMMENT IN THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THE NEWS IS ON THE THOROUGHBRED INDUSTRY NOT THE STANDARDBREDS.
THERE IS ALWAYS A BIG FISH. THE PROSECUTORS WANT THE BIG FISH AND REALLY DO NOT CARE AS MUCH ABOUT THE LITTLE GUY---WANTS THE FOLKS AT THE TOP FOR TWO REASONS: 1). CUT THE SNAKES HEAD OFF 2). PUBLICITY TO ADVANCE CAREERS
HOPE THIS NEUTRAL COMMENTARY HELPS.
