Originally Posted by
Walt
They are required to give defendants speedy trials, not hold them for years in cases that cannot be made. Even if you agree that he should have been held without bail, he should have been released when the prosecution realized they had no case against him.
Browder was standing next to a car that had been stolen. He claimed he had not stolen the car. He was held for a week in jail, and then offered immediate release if he plead guilty. He thought it was a good deal, and took it to get out of jail.
When he was arrested later for allegedly stealing the backpack, but no evidence was found on him, he was not in the area when the crime was committed, and the only witness gave conflicting stories, and was not willing to testify. Realizing they had a weak case, prosecutors took the unusual step of violating his probation, and locking him away without bail for years while they asked for drips and drops of extensions. Basically, they punished him for not confessing to something he had not done.
Bookmarks