@Cakers3
The thing is, the legal fees of those not taking the plea deals will be far larger than what the government asked for in compensation. If you truly felt there's a chance you'd be found guilty, you'd jump at the plea deal. Even if you knew you were innocent you probably should take the plea deal. It's better than what you'd get after being convicted and would cost less than fighting the case. Just a few of those charged accepted the plea deal, the majority chose to fight the case. Why? Are they all stupid? I don't think so.
They clearly don't want this on their record, but if you're a CEO or an actress does having a relatively minor felony on your record harm you in a major way? Not really. People have short memories. So, why fight it? They've clearly lost in the court of public opinion, but they fight it still. Why? My guess is they know they can win in the courtroom. In fact, I suspect they know they will win.
Deals do get done all the time, but typically because the person accused knows they're guilty and there's a better than average chance they'll be found guilty. If you're caught on camera robbing a bank and you're offered a plea deal, you take the deal. You know they have you dead to rights, so you take the deal.
Prosecutors get paid the same no matter whether a case is settled or fought all the way through the courts. There's no real benefit to them to settle on a case they're confident they'll win. These cases will be featured a lot in the news and earn the prosecutors fame for being the one trying these criminals. Look at Marcia Clark and Chris Darden and how they benefitted from the OJ case, even though they lost. If you're a prosecutor with an eye on a future in politics (and many/most are) why not prosecute a high profile case to the fullest extent?
Unless you know there is no case. Unless you know you can't prove the charges you've made. Unless you know you could end up being a laughingstock for trying the case.
To me, and this is just my opinion, I don't think the prosecution has a solid case and I think they know it. I think they offered very sweet plea deals in the hope that they wouldn't get exposed in court. I think they thought, "No one in their right mind will turn down these deals and we can save face." Now the majority of those charged have turned down the plea deals and are wanting a trial, at great personal expense, and the prosecution finds themselves in a tough spot. Do they march into court and try a weak case, knowing they may (probably will) lose?
My gut says the prosecution knows they can't win these cases. I could be wrong. Maybe they were just being really, really nice to those charged. Maybe those charged are all brain-dead idiots who would rather waste a million dollars defending themselves than pay $20,000 in restitution. Maybe those charged don't mind the threat of twenty to forty years in prison over the possibility of a year of supervised release. I just don't think all of those who rejected the plea deals are idiots. I don't think the prosecutors were just being really nice guys/gals and giving these nice rich people a break. I don't think the defense lawyers representing these very wealthy clients are all fools. I could be wrong, but we'll find out when the first of the trials gets near.
My best guess is the prosecution will decide not to proceed with trials rather than get embarrassed in court. Charges will be dropped and the cases dismissed. I could be wrong, but that would be my best guess. Too many seemingly smart people have chosen the most expensive, possibly career destroying path, while the prosecutors have been extremely generous in a plea deal, to make me think that the prosecution will win.
Fly!!! Eagles!!! Fly!!!
Blogs & Forums
