Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Like I said, it doesn't go to any facts relevant to the claims. You want the defense to see the government's own assessment of legal arguments and I understand why you do, but that's not what I said.
If you ran the world, any defendant with the chops to create media buzz suggesting that they have been targeted unfairly would then get off, because you are a sucker for that sob story.
eta: If selective prosecution concerns you, how about the Supreme Court's decision today in Nieves? Much more concerning to me than the decision to prosecute Assange.
|
I am probably as sympathetic as anyone here to Sebastian's concerns about abuse of prosecutorial discretion and other misconduct. But the idea that the remedy is to probe into the prosecutor's motives to determine whether the prosecution was inspired by the desire for some political advancement or goal seems somewhere on the spectrum from hugely impractical to koo koo pants. In fairness, though, I think Sebastian was not suggesting that anyone with the chops to create media buzz would "get off," but that a defendant might be able to avail him or herself of an additional defense if the defendant could convince the judge that he/she had established whatever showing was necessary to allow for an inquiry into the prosecutor's charging decision.
