Hacker News Reader

Comment by mring33621 | Hacker News Reader

Prosecutors "protecting those careers" is 100% true

Source: I work with a top defense lawyer in Chicago

Absolutely. I actually went to trial many years ago because a DA wouldn't back down, he thought I'd bend. I didn't. We literally had video footage of the culprit, it clearly wasn't me and clearly WAS someone else. The DA waited until the day before we were to pick a jury to drop the charges, just a few days before trial. After, the DA even said to me, "I'm a dangerous man to make an enemy of." I think I was 20, so obviously I was cocky and snapped back "So am I," and stormed off. I not live a thousand miles away from that crappy little town.

I would be interested to know from him why he, personally, felt that you defending your innocence made you his enemy.

Seriously. And what kind of moron did the D.A. he think was that he would take a criminal conviction on his record by pleading guilty, when he had video evidence of his innocence!! Just to avoid embarrassing the D.A., a stranger to him?

When I was 19 and told the DA I'd be fighting my case and proving my innocence, I watched a vein pop out of his head. He got the better of me though, his dad was the mayor and the judge was in his pocket and they facilitated an absolutely mockery of a trial despite zero evidence, and my public defender was in on the racket and refused to allow me an appeal, and the jail refused to give me new counsel.

This same DA has a reputation for assaulting prostitutes and just got sworn in as the parish judge. I guess playing fair would have hurt his career because my understanding is to be a judge out there you have to demonstrate crookedness.

Louisiana? Not surprised.

I was arrested as a minor because someone who was giving me a ride was found with 0.156 grams of cannabis residue in his booksack which was not accessible to me at any point. The other two defendants had parents and accepted pretrial. I was homeless with no parental support or money for pretrial and had to fight it. The driver went on stand and said it was his and that I never had access to it. Half a dozen cops testified wildly different stories.

But, my right to a jury trial was illegally taken from me and the judge simply said, "I think you're lying," without a shred of proof and gave me the maximum allowed 6 month jailtime and maximum fines for a misdemeanor charge given to me as a minor with no prior record. I immediately told my attorney I wanted to appeal due to a mistrial and her failure to make a valid motion to quash, and she looked at me, pointed at the judge, and furiously scolded me, saying, "Absolutely not. That is my boss and he will make my life hell if I allow you to appeal."

The other parish public defender, which they'd pulled from my case due to his desire to actually help me, was so upset that he went to the judge's quarters, screamed at him and then came to my cell to apologize profusely about me getting illegally railroaded. He was never able to fix my case.

His brother... was the DA. Now he is running to replace him as DA since his brother got sworn in as a judge. I'm going to reach out to him and try to get it removed from the system now.

Also, when I got arrested, the DA's dad, the town mayor, personally visited the home of the folks who were letting me stay in their garage so I could finish high school and tried to convince them to put me out on the street so that I would fail my classes and end back up in jail. The fucking mayor.

So many levels of fucked up to that case. Not to mention that the officer who arrested me is a known meth producer, distributor and user. I have personally witnessed her bring a smurf to the pharmacy to buy sudafed IN HER POLICE UNIT so that she could go cook meth while on duty.

And while in court for my own case for 0.156 grams of a material that was never found on my person or within reach of me, I watched a man who was friends with the judge get sentenced to a grand total of 20 days of community service after being found with two ounces of pot in his pockets and a bottle of whiskey while illegally hunting on someone else's land out of season without permits, operating a firearm while basically blackout drunk. It is literally who you know.

How many years ago was this. I think I’d pay money to see them in deep shit.

This took place 13-15 years ago. Anonymous FBI tips were swallowed up, ACLU was uninterested, couldn't get a journalist to bite. Some of the people involved have already died without ever facing justice.

Write a book. The only thing they hate more than accountability is a tarnished legacy. Disbarment is temporary, the public dancing on their grave lasts as long as the scandal and plot location are known.

Especially after reading this earlier in the week

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/oct/...

Because the DA has a win/loss ratio to maintain. If it drops too low, how is he ever going to run for governor? It's all about power using it to protect their career.

As people have said, they hate losing a case and will try to tempt you into a plea deal that seems like less hassle than anything else and "make this go away." But I'm stubborn, always have been. I made a fool of him in court by his reckoning because I challenged his authority and won.

I'd like to see a three way verdict: guilty/not guilty/innocent.

An innocent verdict would mean the defendant had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not do the act and would put the state on the hook for all costs. A jury that hung between not guilty and innocent would be considered to be not guilty, no retrial. Reality works better when misdeeds carry costs for those who commit them.

People mentioned it in the article, it used to be "innocent until proven guilty". No need for a third category.

You're presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

I like this!

They used to have this in Scorland - Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven, with the last two legally having the same affect (ie being aquitted) but I believe Not Proven was abolished at the start of this year.

I believe the problem was that in practice it became He Totally Did It But The Evidence Sucks So He Gets To Walk Free, and was increasingly interpreted as such. In the public's eye, everything besides a Not Guilty meant you did it.

so then if you're not guilty, so not actually innocent, you're like... kinda guilty, right? you could still end up on the no-fly list, or the sex offenders list, or what have you.

"Your honor, I was innocent of that prior crime and it shouldn't be used to enhance the sentencing of this current case, nor to influence the jury's perception."

"I'm sorry, it says you weren't found guilty; it doesn't say you were innocent."

Now extrapolate this to your friends or potential employers.

"Sure, LorenPechtel wasn't proven guilty of murdering 500 orphans as accused, but he never fully proved his innocence with a detailed and corroborated minute-by-minute log of his activities for the past 5 years. So maybe he did it!"

It's innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent. A third category would be abused to high heaven, and the courts already engage in far too much abuse.

Except for plea bargains, where it is often "innocent until bullied into accepting a plea deal as the better option - even when you didn't do it". No need to prove anything there.

I am currently in the court system defending my innocence regarding a recent incident which I can't currently discuss, and the officer who charged me was literally bragging about how most of the charges would get "pled down"; he was openly and deliberately frontloading me with bogus extra charges hoping some would stick if I did a plea deal for the rest. He told me that if I talked back to him, he'd give me an assaulting an officer charge just because he could get away with it. The corruption is baked into the system from top to bottom.

There are sort of other options like an Alford plea where, my understanding is, the prosecution knows you didn’t do it, you plead guilty anyway and they tell you to just fuck off.

Or if the jury acquits, they are asked whether it was reasonable for the state to prosecute the case for each of the charges. If ≥50% say no on any charge, criminal charges are automatically brought against the prosecuting attorney and judge for malicious prosecution. Conviction carries mandatory disbarment plus prison time.

Should reply "and you have made an enemy today."

Can the DA's past history be used as evidence in future cases to show they're not credible?

Courtroom trials aren't supposed to be the DA's word against the defending lawyers. They are supposed to be about evidence presented by them.

Serious question.. when you do get picked up for something like that and you invoke your rights for silence. How do you get council? Do you already have a number, do you already have a relationship with a defense attorney? How do you navigate that?

I am not a lawyer.

The state has to appoint you one if you don't have one. And given that you have to invoke your exercise of your silence anyway, throw it in there. So something like, "I am invoking my right to silence and require an attorney." ought to do it. Having one ready can definitely be helpful. And while a DA is ideal, any lawyer should do, as they'll either be able to do enough work to get you out of there to find a good attorney, or get a real defense criminal attorney involved. If you do have a prior relationship, keep their card in your wallet and point them to that when you invoke your right to silence.

Illinois is one of the most corrupt places in the country for criminal law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com