Cool Cats
I EXPECT DOUGHNUTS
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 12,488
- Reaction score
- 96,484
state has accepted his proffer with his contradictions, and they alone get to decide if JW has lived up to his bargain with the state, defence obviously seeing the contradictions in JW proffer think they can do a vigorous cross examination challenging his version of events
if they go to trial with the DP being either removed or reinstated by what JW says then IMO they are hampered in how they cross examine him, if they are able to get him to make statements that deviate from the proffer then JW will not have adhered to his bargain with the state and the DP gets reinstated as a possible penalty for the 4, I doubt any defence attorney would want to be responsible for moving his clients possible penalty from LWOP to DP,
I don't think it is fair that the defence are limited in how they defend GW the younger due to the way the DP can be reinstated,
From my understanding the normal way it is done is this:
You have 4 co-defendants who are not related and all 4 are charged with death penalty (DP) specifications. Prosecution offers them a plea deal:
Plead guilty and get the DP dropped. Possibly, like with Angela, get some other charges dropped.
All 4 Wagners were offered this and only 2 of them took it.
Now back to the 4 co-defendants who are not related:
2 of them take the plea deal and now they have to testify for the State in their co-defendant's trials because the co-defendants will not take a plea, they insist on a trial.
The DP is still on the table for the 2 co-defendants, the prosecution is keeping the death specifications against them.
I think this is how it is normally done, there is no deal to remove the death specifications against the 2 co-defendants going to trial.
So why did the prosecution offer to remove the DP from Jake's co-defendants when it's not normally done? Normally each person has to do their own pleas to get the DP removed.
Because Jake has to testify against family members and that puts in a moral dilemma. It isn't logical, right or moral to ask a son to testify against his parents and brother when his own testimony can send them to death row.
In fact it's absurd in the extreme to expect anyone to do that.
The Court knows this. This is why the State offered to take off the DP for Jake's family. But just like with anyone turning State's evidence, Jake has to be truthful.
George and Billy don't understand that they should do their own pleas if they want the DP removed. They don't understand that taking a plea to get the DP removed is a good thing for them. They might even get some charges dropped.
Going to trial they can't win, anyone who thinks they can win - I have swamp property to sell.
They are guaranteed LWOP with a trial and even might get the DP if Jake doesn't follow through. Why would George think Jake would follow through? George's defense accused him in a Motion of having mental problems and being a liar.
So they don't underestand that a plea deal would be in their best interests. DP off the table for sure and maybe a deal like Angie got or something similar, they could certainly try.