Return to “Rick Perry (and others) felony charges”
Steve - Thanks for your post. I did not realize that she was the comptroller at that time.srothstein wrote:Actually, to the falsely accused, there is a world of difference between these two. We also now have a criminal verdict of actual innocence, at least at the appellate level.vhauk wrote:Not guilty is the same as innocent of the charge.
Innocent until proven guilty does not one thing for the person falsely accused, especially when the DA plays to the media about the charges.
You may remember that there was a political storm in the media a few years ago. A prisoner was set free from prison after many years. The court ruled he was not guilty and the DA decided not to retry the accused. Susan Combs was the comptroller and refused to make a payment under the restitution law. Her argument was that the law required the judge to rule that the case was overturned due to actual innocence and not just due to reasonable doubt. A lot of people thought she should have paid anyway.
And to keep this tied to the original subject, I will point out that Rick Perry was one of those who thought she should have ordered the payment It was one of the major disagreements between the two, around the time of the Amazon tax case (another point of disagreement between the two).
Not true. Legally there is no such verdict as innocent. I believe that was the point of tomneal's original post.vhauk wrote:Not guilty is the same as innocent of the charge.
Innocent until proven guilty does not one thing for the person falsely accused, especially when the DA plays to the media about the charges. The Travis County DA had obvious political motivations for the indictment and tried to make a case for his prosecution in the media.
Both of these (politically motivated indictments and using the media to influence the people,) should be chargeable offenses. At the very least, any public official who uses his office to injure someone for political reasons should be removed from office. If these type of acts are allowed to stand, to remain without remedy, then there is no longer a possibility of justice for anyone.
Good question and I think you know not a simple answer. I believe that judges have immunity. I am not sure about prosecutors.tomneal wrote:Sorry. I miss read.According to a story on FOX News, he spent more than $2 million for his defense lawyers.
I am ok with this but where would you stop?I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.
What do you do with the 1st judge that didn't throw out the case?
I understood and agree with your point.tomneal wrote:Today's article about the Perry charges indicated that he spent around $1,000,000 fighting the charges.
My point is that the DA that brought the charges should pay the bill.
I would like to see DAs who file bogus and malicious charges disbarred, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed.tomneal wrote:Rick Perry is not the first person to spend a fortune defending against bogus charges.
It's not exactly gun related but I'd like to see three possible verdicts:
Guilty
Not Guilty
Innocent
If you are found Innocent, the District Attorney pays your defense bill.