Does that apply to RICO prosecutions as well? Seems to me that when they went after the mob with RICO, evidence produced in one trial was used to go after higher ups in another trial.
That’s not how RICO or organized crime prosecutions work - you are able to use the threat of legal prosecution or enhanced sentencing to convince a witness to “flip” or cooperate against other defendants. You get one guy to flip, then use him to get another, and so on. They agree to provide information and testimony in exchange for a favorable plea deal or reduced sentencing.
Has nothing to do with using evidence “produced” in one trial in another.
In fact, Sussman’s acquittal means Durham cannot use this strategy to further some larger investigation. It’s essentially the opposite of that.
Ok, thanks for the info. Let me ask you a question then. Why do you think Durham, a prosecutor who has never lost a case (from what I’ve heard) would choose to prosecute Sussman in DC with a presiding judge that has a professional relationship with Sussman, the judges wife was Lisa Page’s lawyer, one of the jury members kids is a rowing mate with Sussman’s kid, and several of the jury members were Clinton supporters and donors without asking for the judges recusal or challenging the questionable jurors? It’s almost like he intentionally wanted to lose the case.
Does that apply to RICO prosecutions as well? Seems to me that when they went after the mob with RICO, evidence produced in one trial was used to go after higher ups in another trial.
That’s not how RICO or organized crime prosecutions work - you are able to use the threat of legal prosecution or enhanced sentencing to convince a witness to “flip” or cooperate against other defendants. You get one guy to flip, then use him to get another, and so on. They agree to provide information and testimony in exchange for a favorable plea deal or reduced sentencing.
Has nothing to do with using evidence “produced” in one trial in another.
In fact, Sussman’s acquittal means Durham cannot use this strategy to further some larger investigation. It’s essentially the opposite of that.
Are you a lawyer?
Yes. Lawfag here.
Ok, thanks for the info. Let me ask you a question then. Why do you think Durham, a prosecutor who has never lost a case (from what I’ve heard) would choose to prosecute Sussman in DC with a presiding judge that has a professional relationship with Sussman, the judges wife was Lisa Page’s lawyer, one of the jury members kids is a rowing mate with Sussman’s kid, and several of the jury members were Clinton supporters and donors without asking for the judges recusal or challenging the questionable jurors? It’s almost like he intentionally wanted to lose the case.