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.
