Granted, it's tricky trying to second-guess the prosecution in a given case, because we don't have the intimate knowledge of all the facts and the prosecutor's experience in weighing those facts. But some actions appear more unjustified that others. This particular deal seems like the kind that gives plea bargaining a bad name:
The man accused of killing a Vito's pizza delivery driver in November of 2009, will no longer face Murder charges after a plea agreement was reached Thursday, even after he threatened a witness the day before.
Washington, 21, and Deangelo M. Bennett, 19, were both named as suspects shortly after Vito's Pizza delivery driver Ian Crace, 32, was robbed and shot to death on the evening of November 29, 2009 in the 2800 block of Schele Avenue.
According to the Allen County Prosecutor's Office, Washington threatened a witness in a holding area that was scheduled to testify against him Wednesday.
Because of the safety of that witness, and the fact that the prosecution said its case was only based on circumstantial evidence, lawyers made a plea deal.
Under that agreement, Washington pleaded guilty to Robbery, and the prosecutor will drop the Murder and Felony Murder charges.
“We had no direct evidence (against Washington). There was a significant possibility that we would not get a favorable outcome from the jury,” said Chief Deputy Prosecutor Michael McAlexander. “Circumstantial cases can be very difficult to prove. It's also difficult when you are relying on statements that are made by jail testimony. Juries have a difficult time accepting them with a credibility standpoint.”
This isn't just a run-of-the-mill murder. This was a murder that happened during the commission of another crime, one of the few "special circumstances" that justify the death penalty under Indiana law. And they plead this guy down to a 20-to-50 sentence after he threatens a witness?
So they had "no direct evidence" against Washington. More cases than prosecutors would like to acknowledge are based solely on circumstantial evidence, and the win most of them. Givent the seriousness of the crime, why couldn't they have taken a little more time and tried to build a better case? The was the second time around for this case, prosecutors getting hit with a mistrial the first time because they failed to turn over two key pieces of evidence to the defense. I'd hate to think they're just tired of the case and wanted it to be over with.
I'd like to hear a lot more justification of this deal.
Comments
Maybe he threatened the prosecutor.
I presume that the defendent wasn't left unattended, which means that whatever cop was babysitting him at the time should be able to testify to the fact that he threatened the witness. Shouldn't Washington be charged for this as well?
By the way, who was the idiot who decided it was a good idea to let the accused and the witness comingle to begin with? Probably the same fool who thought it would be wise to withhold evidence from the defense. Seems like the Prosecutor tried pretty hard to screw this case up.
I tend to agree. But knowing the local press, you'll never read about it.
I have always been skeptical of testimony offered by cellmates, as to what the accused person said while in custody.
If he says something that gets reported to the cops, and the cops use that information to find tangible evidence, such as stolen property, a weapon that can be traced to the crime, etc., I have no problem with using that testimony as a way of connecting him with the evidence that's uncovered.
On the other hand, a guy that's in jail might be bragging about his violent ways, in order to discourage others from attacking him. If it doesn't tie him to evidence that nobody else knows about, I assume the guy's lying.
Littlejohn,
Agreeing with you there!
I saw a small story tucked at the bottom of a long page at J.G. that said ACEB was being forced to hold an emergency meeting tomorrow to reconsider the Schrader situation. Then, Around FortWayne just posted that the meeting has been cancelled (to be rescheduled at an undetermined date). The J.G. also did a nice story recently where they mentioned every single candidate for city office, with the exception of Alexander Avery.
I'm sure that when we go to the polls not even knowing for sure who will be on the ballot, the local press will blame us stupid voters again for being so uninformed. Hard to imagine how this could be when they are doing such a good job telling us what's going on.
No offense meant towards Leo, though. Sure, he's a member of the press, but he's also a blogger. And we all know that bloggers always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!