Why did Larry Nassar plead guilty & accept plea deal if...
Jan 27, 2018 2:28:10 GMT
scienceisgod likes this
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 2:28:10 GMT
...he was up for life in prison anyway? He was sentenced to 40-175 years state, 60 years federal, and that's WITH the plea deal.
I'm glad it worked out this way, he deserves to rot. But from the perspective of the defense, I can't understand how the plea benefits them. Typically when defendants plead guilty & accept plea deals, they're getting a lesser charge than had they been found guilty by a jury. But in this case he's getting 40-175 years in prison anyway.
If he had instead pleaded "not guilty" but was found guilty, then what, he gets a maximum of 195 years in prison instead of 175? At that point what difference would it make? Wouldn't it be much smarter for the defense to go for the win where they have a small chance?
The defense could've used the defense that his procedures were for medical reasons. In fact, considering that in criminal trials, the burden rests on the prosecution, a doctor claiming that his procedures were for legitimate medical reasons would seem like a challenging claim to disprove. We have seen police officers acquitted of shooting unarmed men using the defense of "fear" and Casey Anthony acquitted of killing her child. Him just saying he "believed" they were medical reasons might just be enough to acquit him or get him a lesser charge where he's not allowed to practice medicine anymore.
I'm thrilled this guy's defense sucked, but - his defense sucked.
Also, Michael Jackson was convicted of a similar crime, pleaded not guilty, and was found not guilty. If Michael Jackson can be acquitted when his alleged victims were strange kids he had over his house for a slumber party, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude Nassar had a chance to be acquitted when his victims were scheduled patients in his doctor's office?
I'm glad it worked out this way, he deserves to rot. But from the perspective of the defense, I can't understand how the plea benefits them. Typically when defendants plead guilty & accept plea deals, they're getting a lesser charge than had they been found guilty by a jury. But in this case he's getting 40-175 years in prison anyway.
If he had instead pleaded "not guilty" but was found guilty, then what, he gets a maximum of 195 years in prison instead of 175? At that point what difference would it make? Wouldn't it be much smarter for the defense to go for the win where they have a small chance?
The defense could've used the defense that his procedures were for medical reasons. In fact, considering that in criminal trials, the burden rests on the prosecution, a doctor claiming that his procedures were for legitimate medical reasons would seem like a challenging claim to disprove. We have seen police officers acquitted of shooting unarmed men using the defense of "fear" and Casey Anthony acquitted of killing her child. Him just saying he "believed" they were medical reasons might just be enough to acquit him or get him a lesser charge where he's not allowed to practice medicine anymore.
I'm thrilled this guy's defense sucked, but - his defense sucked.
Also, Michael Jackson was convicted of a similar crime, pleaded not guilty, and was found not guilty. If Michael Jackson can be acquitted when his alleged victims were strange kids he had over his house for a slumber party, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude Nassar had a chance to be acquitted when his victims were scheduled patients in his doctor's office?
