So, the charges are dismissed with prejudice, the DEA agent imprisoned for corruption, the alleged victim testifies in his favor. What makes the other narrative compelling? I see people citing the court document in which the claims were made… But what is the value of that document if the result was a dismissal with prejudice? Shouldn’t that support the innocence narrative?
I am genuinely curious. I’m not necessarily advocating his innocence, I want to understand what other people know that makes them so convinced that he is guilty of this.
Just to note, charges dismissed with prejudice means that the prosecution can’t correct the errors and re-file the case. It’s usually done when the judge has pretty compelling evidence that the charges are garbage, or there’s really egregious prosecutorial misconduct.
I have seen this repeated multiple times on Lemmy. When I look this up, I find:
So, the charges are dismissed with prejudice, the DEA agent imprisoned for corruption, the alleged victim testifies in his favor. What makes the other narrative compelling? I see people citing the court document in which the claims were made… But what is the value of that document if the result was a dismissal with prejudice? Shouldn’t that support the innocence narrative?
I am genuinely curious. I’m not necessarily advocating his innocence, I want to understand what other people know that makes them so convinced that he is guilty of this.
Just to note, charges dismissed with prejudice means that the prosecution can’t correct the errors and re-file the case. It’s usually done when the judge has pretty compelling evidence that the charges are garbage, or there’s really egregious prosecutorial misconduct.