From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 15:38:44 MST
Steven Harvey wrote:
As a
> practicing criminal defense attorney, I can attest that this is not
> the case. Selective prosecution is not a defense. Who to prosecute
> is within the discretion of the prosecutors, & the only remnedy is to
> vote them out of office. The accused cannot prevail on a claim of
> selective prosecution. What must be shown is that the particular
> prosecution is malicious, which is very different. Steven Harvey
### Ooops. I guess I made a mistake here. I assumed that availability of
records showing that the prosecutors habitually ignore a crime would be
sufficient to sway a jury. Let's say, if you had video recordings of
hundreds of cars speeding by a police car, with only one of them being
(apparently randomly) selected for a stop - could you introduce it in a case
defending the selected person? What if that person was minority? What is the
meaning of "malicious prosecution"?
It's good to hear from a professional instead of just us amateurs.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST