Quote:
Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot
Once again --
Ignorance of the law is not nor ever has been an excuse or a defense to breaking it.
Pretty simple -- heh???
|
Well...that is exactly why they brought charges against him, but proving those charges, would have been a different story, though I personally think that he would not have stood a chance with any jury, any where.
Prosecutors file as many charges against a person that they can, it is common practice, knowing that they cannot get a conviction on all of them. It is the theory "throw enough mud against the wall and some of it will stick".
They will offer a plea bargin and agree to drop their weakest charges. In Walkers case they offered to drop 8 of the ten charges, 3 of which carried life sentences. His attorney told him to take the deal, instead of risking a conviction in front of a jury.
An attorney will tell you that anytime you choose to be tried by a jury, truth or innocence is immaterial, it is a dice roll.
About twenty years ago, nationally, there were over 10 million city, county, state, federal laws, and ordinances (I would not like to know how many more there are now). Unfortunately ignorance of the law will not prevent one from being charged, but once in trial intent has to be proven.