Search results

I didn't say they were spurious. Sometimes they are extraneous, because they are already implied in the principle offence for which the accused takes the plea agreement. They are typically weak, and the prosecution would have great difficulty obtaining convictions, and the accused may not be...

Like I said earlier, it's charge stacking. They will add on as many charges as they can in a given case, so that the accused sees that the case against them is so overwhelming that the risk of not taking the plea deal is unacceptable. The prosecution stacks things like false reporting onto the...

Yeah. A lot of people with DUIs, even people with multiple DUIs, are not alcoholics at all, let alone people who fit the suicide-by-alcoholism character.

Hire a lawyer first. When he or she tells you not to allow the media to interview you or snoop around your yard, take the advice. Then hit the bottle or whatever you've gotta do.

35-44.1-2-3(d)(1)/MA: False Informing • Dismissed This is what's known as "charge stacking", by the way. The police and prosecutors will stack multiple charges onto a case in an effort to convince the accused that there is no realistic option apart from entering a guilty plea.

That is true, but you cannot be guaranteed that he is lying about this case simply because he's a known liar. Edit: apparently that's not even true. No convictions for false informing.

One could say something false while believing it to be true. That is not a lie. A lie is saying something that is false and believing it to be false.