Mayor of Slot Rocks
@mayorofslotrocks.bsky.social
Can we agree that if prosecutors brought indictments every time they had probable cause, the 97% rate would be overwhelming evidence of coercion?
November 18, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Can we agree that if prosecutors brought indictments every time they had probable cause, the 97% rate would be overwhelming evidence of coercion?
There is a time and a place for a plea bargain. But a 97% plea rate is facial evidence of a dysfunctional system.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
November 18, 2025 at 11:37 PM
There is a time and a place for a plea bargain. But a 97% plea rate is facial evidence of a dysfunctional system.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
Either: 1. the system coerces innocent defendants to plead guilty, 2. prosecutors are too risk-averse, or 3. a combination of the two.
What losses?
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
November 18, 2025 at 11:30 PM
What losses?
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
Federal criminal cases are rarely tried. A federal prosecutor does not need confidence that an indictment can be won at trial. Only that a defendant will admit guilt to avoid a much harsher sentence.
What juries? 97% of cases result in plea bargains.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
November 18, 2025 at 11:27 PM
What juries? 97% of cases result in plea bargains.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
If federal prosecutors had to actually try cases to get convictions then I would not be complaining.
Instead you assume that prosecutors apply this standard themselves. And thus post-indictment coercive practices are okay. Because they are being applied to people who you assume are guilty.
November 18, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Instead you assume that prosecutors apply this standard themselves. And thus post-indictment coercive practices are okay. Because they are being applied to people who you assume are guilty.
Is this not you? “Prosecutors generally only bring criminal charges when overwhelming evidence of guilt exists”
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
November 18, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Is this not you? “Prosecutors generally only bring criminal charges when overwhelming evidence of guilt exists”
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
That is not the legal standard.
If you don’t want indictments without “overwhelming evidence” then make that the standard.
I don’t understand your question. I’ve said several times that I find the system to be unfair and coercive. And I’ve provided examples (e.g. trial penalty).
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
November 18, 2025 at 11:07 PM
I don’t understand your question. I’ve said several times that I find the system to be unfair and coercive. And I’ve provided examples (e.g. trial penalty).
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
The only response that I’ve heard so far is “Don’t worry. You can trust prosecutors not to charge anyone who isn’t guilty.”
It isn't about the quality of the lawyering that is the problem.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
November 18, 2025 at 10:08 PM
It isn't about the quality of the lawyering that is the problem.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
The primarily problem is that both federal criminal law and procedure are fundamentally unfair and morally offensive. The entire process is designed to coerce guilty pleas, and it is wildly successful.
I didn't say that they are interchangeable. I said that simply going to a top law school, which is a prerequisite for the job, does not make one more ethical or less ambitious.
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
November 18, 2025 at 9:58 PM
I didn't say that they are interchangeable. I said that simply going to a top law school, which is a prerequisite for the job, does not make one more ethical or less ambitious.
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
Although I am awfully curious about this "evidence." Is there some objective data supporting your view?
The safeguard against prosecutorial over-reach is supposed to be judges and juries. Not a naive faith that US Attorneys will never charge anyone who doesn't deserve it.
November 18, 2025 at 9:21 PM
The safeguard against prosecutorial over-reach is supposed to be judges and juries. Not a naive faith that US Attorneys will never charge anyone who doesn't deserve it.
Once again, who says they don't? I understand that you equate "Ivy-League prosecutor" with "ethical prosecutor." But I don't.
I suspect that federal prosecutors are no different than state prosecutors, only a smarter on average. They bring cases they can win. Full stop.
I suspect that federal prosecutors are no different than state prosecutors, only a smarter on average. They bring cases they can win. Full stop.
November 18, 2025 at 9:21 PM
Once again, who says they don't? I understand that you equate "Ivy-League prosecutor" with "ethical prosecutor." But I don't.
I suspect that federal prosecutors are no different than state prosecutors, only a smarter on average. They bring cases they can win. Full stop.
I suspect that federal prosecutors are no different than state prosecutors, only a smarter on average. They bring cases they can win. Full stop.
Thanks, but my idea of a good criminal justice system is not one where the criminal defendants are presumed guilty and we rely on prosecutors to simply never bring cases against innocent people (or even over-charge the guilty).
November 18, 2025 at 8:31 PM
Thanks, but my idea of a good criminal justice system is not one where the criminal defendants are presumed guilty and we rely on prosecutors to simply never bring cases against innocent people (or even over-charge the guilty).
There is a belief that Musk is a business/tech wizard, and entitled to huge rewards. So don't compare him to cashiers and janitors. Compare him to other very successful people.
Musk would make 5,000x per year what Andy Reid makes.
Or 200,000x what an average orthopedic surgeon makes.
Musk would make 5,000x per year what Andy Reid makes.
Or 200,000x what an average orthopedic surgeon makes.
November 18, 2025 at 7:55 PM
There is a belief that Musk is a business/tech wizard, and entitled to huge rewards. So don't compare him to cashiers and janitors. Compare him to other very successful people.
Musk would make 5,000x per year what Andy Reid makes.
Or 200,000x what an average orthopedic surgeon makes.
Musk would make 5,000x per year what Andy Reid makes.
Or 200,000x what an average orthopedic surgeon makes.
The “nobody has a prayer” referred specifically to Comey's efforts to penetrate the GJ presumption of regularity and obtain GJ minutes.
Let's assume Comey wins this one. Bookmark this thread. You can come back in a year and dunk on me with all the cases where other defendants got the same relief.
Let's assume Comey wins this one. Bookmark this thread. You can come back in a year and dunk on me with all the cases where other defendants got the same relief.
November 18, 2025 at 7:45 PM
The “nobody has a prayer” referred specifically to Comey's efforts to penetrate the GJ presumption of regularity and obtain GJ minutes.
Let's assume Comey wins this one. Bookmark this thread. You can come back in a year and dunk on me with all the cases where other defendants got the same relief.
Let's assume Comey wins this one. Bookmark this thread. You can come back in a year and dunk on me with all the cases where other defendants got the same relief.
Here is what I have consistently said:
1. The federal criminal system is stacked heavily against defendants.
2. Because of his resume, and familiarity with the system, James Comey is less likely to get screwed and more likely to get favorable rulings than almost any other defendant.
That is all.
1. The federal criminal system is stacked heavily against defendants.
2. Because of his resume, and familiarity with the system, James Comey is less likely to get screwed and more likely to get favorable rulings than almost any other defendant.
That is all.
November 18, 2025 at 7:40 PM
Here is what I have consistently said:
1. The federal criminal system is stacked heavily against defendants.
2. Because of his resume, and familiarity with the system, James Comey is less likely to get screwed and more likely to get favorable rulings than almost any other defendant.
That is all.
1. The federal criminal system is stacked heavily against defendants.
2. Because of his resume, and familiarity with the system, James Comey is less likely to get screwed and more likely to get favorable rulings than almost any other defendant.
That is all.
For example, if you want "safety valve" relief from mandatory sentencing guidelines, you don't have the luxury of testing the government's case. You pretty much need to get on board and cooperate immediately.
2/2
2/2
November 18, 2025 at 7:37 PM
For example, if you want "safety valve" relief from mandatory sentencing guidelines, you don't have the luxury of testing the government's case. You pretty much need to get on board and cooperate immediately.
2/2
2/2
Also, my claim is not that defendants have "no impression" of evidence against them.
But it is objectively true that the time to cut a deal usually comes well before trial, before pre-trial motion practice/hearings, and before the government is obligated to disclose much of its evidence.
1/2
But it is objectively true that the time to cut a deal usually comes well before trial, before pre-trial motion practice/hearings, and before the government is obligated to disclose much of its evidence.
1/2
November 18, 2025 at 7:37 PM
Also, my claim is not that defendants have "no impression" of evidence against them.
But it is objectively true that the time to cut a deal usually comes well before trial, before pre-trial motion practice/hearings, and before the government is obligated to disclose much of its evidence.
1/2
But it is objectively true that the time to cut a deal usually comes well before trial, before pre-trial motion practice/hearings, and before the government is obligated to disclose much of its evidence.
1/2
Are you responding to me? Because I absolutely do not believe that the average defendant can win against the DOJ.
November 18, 2025 at 7:30 PM
Are you responding to me? Because I absolutely do not believe that the average defendant can win against the DOJ.
The best thing that an experienced criminal defense lawyer can do for you in federal court, that is less of an option in state court, is to convince a prosecutor to never indict you.
But once you are under indictment, you are fucked. That is absolutely not always the case in state court.
But once you are under indictment, you are fucked. That is absolutely not always the case in state court.
November 18, 2025 at 7:24 PM
The best thing that an experienced criminal defense lawyer can do for you in federal court, that is less of an option in state court, is to convince a prosecutor to never indict you.
But once you are under indictment, you are fucked. That is absolutely not always the case in state court.
But once you are under indictment, you are fucked. That is absolutely not always the case in state court.
If you have the funds to hire a good criminal defense lawyer (e.g. Alex Spiro), he or she will show up in any jurisdiction you want.
Even if a federal public defender is, on average, more competent than the local legal aid lawyer, that skill doesn't offset the disadvantages of fighting the DOJ.
Even if a federal public defender is, on average, more competent than the local legal aid lawyer, that skill doesn't offset the disadvantages of fighting the DOJ.
November 18, 2025 at 7:20 PM
If you have the funds to hire a good criminal defense lawyer (e.g. Alex Spiro), he or she will show up in any jurisdiction you want.
Even if a federal public defender is, on average, more competent than the local legal aid lawyer, that skill doesn't offset the disadvantages of fighting the DOJ.
Even if a federal public defender is, on average, more competent than the local legal aid lawyer, that skill doesn't offset the disadvantages of fighting the DOJ.
Federal courts reliably, efficiently, and professionally produce convictions of those targeted by the government for criminal charges. That is not the same as producing justice.
If I am innocent, I would almost always prefer to be in state court.
2/2
If I am innocent, I would almost always prefer to be in state court.
2/2
November 18, 2025 at 7:15 PM
Federal courts reliably, efficiently, and professionally produce convictions of those targeted by the government for criminal charges. That is not the same as producing justice.
If I am innocent, I would almost always prefer to be in state court.
2/2
If I am innocent, I would almost always prefer to be in state court.
2/2
State courts are problematic, for different reasons. The judges and lawyers are less intelligent and more over-burdened. You are more likely to see legal mistakes from all parties.
Sure, things are more professional in federal courts.
1/2
Sure, things are more professional in federal courts.
1/2
November 18, 2025 at 7:15 PM
State courts are problematic, for different reasons. The judges and lawyers are less intelligent and more over-burdened. You are more likely to see legal mistakes from all parties.
Sure, things are more professional in federal courts.
1/2
Sure, things are more professional in federal courts.
1/2
Seriously, how would you know?
I will concede that DOJ does not bring charges until they thoroughly investigate. But that does not mean that, at the end of the investigation, they've got the right people, or charged the correct offenses. Then defendants take plea deals before DOJ reveals its case.
I will concede that DOJ does not bring charges until they thoroughly investigate. But that does not mean that, at the end of the investigation, they've got the right people, or charged the correct offenses. Then defendants take plea deals before DOJ reveals its case.
November 18, 2025 at 7:06 PM
Seriously, how would you know?
I will concede that DOJ does not bring charges until they thoroughly investigate. But that does not mean that, at the end of the investigation, they've got the right people, or charged the correct offenses. Then defendants take plea deals before DOJ reveals its case.
I will concede that DOJ does not bring charges until they thoroughly investigate. But that does not mean that, at the end of the investigation, they've got the right people, or charged the correct offenses. Then defendants take plea deals before DOJ reveals its case.
I'm disgusted by the fact that Democrats use Citizens United as a fig leaf to not care about campaign finance reform.
Citizens United totally allows regulation of *coordinated* campaign spending. Congress could go to town on SuperPACs if it wanted.
But Dem leaders don't want that.
2/2
Citizens United totally allows regulation of *coordinated* campaign spending. Congress could go to town on SuperPACs if it wanted.
But Dem leaders don't want that.
2/2
November 18, 2025 at 7:02 PM
I'm disgusted by the fact that Democrats use Citizens United as a fig leaf to not care about campaign finance reform.
Citizens United totally allows regulation of *coordinated* campaign spending. Congress could go to town on SuperPACs if it wanted.
But Dem leaders don't want that.
2/2
Citizens United totally allows regulation of *coordinated* campaign spending. Congress could go to town on SuperPACs if it wanted.
But Dem leaders don't want that.
2/2