Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
The funny thing is we're just taking past each other. They want to pretend that we're arguing about the law or legal terminology. It's hilarious. I'm just making a very simple point that there's a world of difference between someone agreeing to a plea deal and someone being tried in front of a jury and found guilty of a crime (especially in this case where the other charges he was facing were far more serious than him trimming the Wagner). It's not a legal debate. It's just common sense and simple logic. You don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4 and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that there's a difference of implications between someone agreeing to a plea deal and someone being tried in front of a jury and being found guilty of specific charges.
If a prosecutor lists out 20 things that they think they might be able to get you on and you come to an agreement with them because you think overall the terms are more favorable than you'd get if you were to fight them in court, it says nothing about whether or not each of those specific 20 charges would have stuck. Regardless of whether or not an entire room full of lawyers tells you otherwise.
|
Mastro pled guilty to every count he was charged with and received no “terms” in exchange. He admitted to all criminal conduct the government said he had done and more crimes than what the Feds were even aware of. He was sentenced for more than trimming the Wagner and selling it as untrimmed. He was sentenced on all that he pled to which included every charge in the indictment. He did not receive a break on the plea by being required to plead to only some of the charges.
He threw himself on the mercy of the court at sentencing and even brought a priest along to help exemplify his acceptance of guilt. Part of the sentencing computation was a three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines (which determined the length of his sentence) for “acceptance of responsibility” for his crimes. He received that at sentencing.
Had he gone to trial he would have fought every allegation. He would have told the jury and the public he was innocent. After conviction he would not have received the three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. Additionally, afterward he would have surely publicly said the jury was wrong, they didn’t understand the hobby, the judge was biased against him, the prosecutors withheld favorable evidence and the original charges against him were faulty as they didn’t make out crimes. To his grave he’d continue to claim publicly he was innocent.
You might be the only person on the planet who believes Mastro’s guilty plea makes him less guilty than if he had been convicted after trial.
Now can you stop?
11-26-2024, 08:04 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode