Cornelius wrote on Jun 7
th, 2004 at 6:10am:
After a lot of consideration I came to the conclusion that the d.a. was unhappy that I refused what I now think of as the "dangling diversion option". When I continued to refuse to plead guilty to something I did not do, he then offered the polygraph/bench trail/diversion option if I lost. Diversion again! I am getting very sick of hearing that word.
If I may offer some objective observations: The District Attorney is interested in one thing only: His ass. Thus, he's interested not in you or your possible guilt or innocence (for those facts are irrelevant to his standing), he is interested only in
convicting you. Therefore, any 'deals' or arrangements he makes are aimed at that goal-- thereby boosting his conviction rate by one. Think of him as your worst enemy, the most dangerous person whom you've ever met (I can't think of another way to describe an agent of the government who's sole interest in you is to imprison you). The DA is now playing you; all citizens who are interrogated, charged, or otherwise run afoul of the State are manipulated in this manner-- the State dangles 'a way out', which is nothing more than a venue by which the noose is placed 'round your neck. In this case, the ruse is the polygraph, he plays upon your fears of losing your freedom by dangling the way out ("just take and pass the polygraph, it can only help you, etc.") knowing full well that such an invitation can only bolster his side. Think about it:
If you decline the offer to take a polygraph, he'll use that against you as an indication of guilt.
If you fail the polygraph, he'll use that as an indication of guilt.
If the results are inconclusive, he may in conjunction with your State-sponsered interrogator arbitrarily accuse you of trying to deceive them (countermeasures.)
If you take and pass the polygraph, he MAY drop the charges, but in so doing he's also covering his ass because he's creating a paper trail that protects him should you later be discovered to actually have done whatever is it you're being accused of. "Oh gee, how were we to know she was guilty? She passed our expert polygrapher's interrogation, the box indicated she was innocent, mistakes were made but I'M not the responsible party, my conviction rate still stands at blah blah blah...."
Quote:I believe that he does not want me to turn down these choices and go for a jury trial and is hoping I will accept another choice and not force him into a "to jury or not to jury" decision. He knows, of course, that if I go that route a lot more money is involved for such a ridiculous situation.
Then have your attorney meet with him and tell him you know that. "Look, Mr. DA sir, no one here wants an expensive, lengthy trial by jury that will cost the taxpayers lots of money-- and for what? This case is tenuous at best, and respectfully, when it's concluded in our favour, your office is gong to have a hard time explaining why it chose to go ahead and prosecute this sweet innocent woman in the staggering lack of evidence against her..."
Quote:And therein lies the rub. My husband and the money. He knows I am innocent but is a -- shall I be kind and say miser? Sure. Why not.
Good thing he's been miserly all these years-- now is the 'rainy day' for which he's been saving. How much is your freedom/reputation/relationship worth to him? A sufficient amount to bankroll your defense I hope.
Quote:Despite the fact that I was told back in February that it was unlikely this case would go to arraignment, much less to trial, I do believe I have a good attorney.
Respecfully, any defense attorney who advises you to submit to an open-ended interrorgatory session with The State, absent his presence, and knowing full well you're waiving your Fifth Amendment rights, is incompetent.
Dave