Sounds like a perfect example of my pet peeve with prosecutors who lack any concept of "justice."
It seems to me that the public duty of prosecutors should be to pursue those who are "guilty" ... and not just those against whom a case may be easily made. Here the prosecutors actually ADMIT that they believe that the business owner was the guilty party, but because he was smart enough to have his secretary actually sign all of the invoices, they simply prosecute her instead. They claim there is no "paper trail" to the boss, so therefore "no evidence".
Well, what about using the secretary - who they BELIEVE only did what she was expressly instructed to do - as a witness to testify to that practice. THAT TESTIMONY, guys, is "evidence". Either a jury believes her and convicts her boss, or they don't and they let him off. I see that acquittal is a real risk here, but that is no excuse to simply send the secretary to the pen and congratulate yourself that you have somehow done your job.
These prosecutors should, at the very least, be ashamed.
And McBryde should have given her probation. So shame on him, too.
If you read the article, "Hall said she would take the records of hours worked on the Army helicopters to Woodard." She KNEW there was a document indicating the correct amount of hours. She KNEW that her boss was telling her to cheat the government. She should have been the whistle blower, not a blind follower. "Following orders" when you know you are breaking the law is no excuse.
.jpg)
Link.
5 comments:
Sounds like a perfect example of my pet peeve with prosecutors who lack any concept of "justice."
It seems to me that the public duty of prosecutors should be to pursue those who are "guilty" ... and not just those against whom a case may be easily made. Here the prosecutors actually ADMIT that they believe that the business owner was the guilty party, but because he was smart enough to have his secretary actually sign all of the invoices, they simply prosecute her instead. They claim there is no "paper trail" to the boss, so therefore "no evidence".
Well, what about using the secretary - who they BELIEVE only did what she was expressly instructed to do - as a witness to testify to that practice. THAT TESTIMONY, guys, is "evidence". Either a jury believes her and convicts her boss, or they don't and they let him off. I see that acquittal is a real risk here, but that is no excuse to simply send the secretary to the pen and congratulate yourself that you have somehow done your job.
These prosecutors should, at the very least, be ashamed.
And McBryde should have given her probation. So shame on him, too.
The mother of three young children who hasn't worked in three years. Is she really a threat to rob the government?
Why not prosecute the owner?
Why not give her probation?
This is a disturbing story.
You sound like a complete fool!
Get a grip
Cut the gripe
No more snipe
If you read the article, "Hall said she would take the records of hours worked on the Army helicopters to Woodard." She KNEW there was a document indicating the correct amount of hours. She KNEW that her boss was telling her to cheat the government. She should have been the whistle blower, not a blind follower. "Following orders" when you know you are breaking the law is no excuse.
Isn't everyone cheating the government and vice-versa...
Post a Comment