prosecutors

Nevertheless, that 6 months quote comes from the prosecutors press release [0]: > The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr.

That prosecutors would stack the jury is almost immaterial - life changing punishment would be inflicted before even getting to that point.

Which means less focus on victim less crimes (assuming the prosecutors have any morals left which is admittingly a dubious assumption).

You seem to believe that a bigger portion of the pie should be shifted to public defenders from prosecutors.

This isn't an uncertain case, and it proves the rule that prosecutors go after easy, sure cases.

Yet to listen to the DA, the bank only acted after the prosecutors began asking questions.

This is not to say that all prosecutors are railroading sociopaths, of course not.

If prosecutors could predict what evidence juries would credit at the end of the day, there would be no need for trials.

If anything, the prosecutor's loss highlights why prosecutors haven't gone after the big banks.

Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law.

It's a giant mess with the prosecutors having considerable egg on their face.

Legal discussions were fantastic, with many lawyers, prosecutors and judges participating.

Yeah, but from the article: "And what of the prosecutors’ claim that Abacus was driven by greed to conduct the fraud?

But there is a valid question in the sense of "should a prosecutors role be to a) see the guilty punished, or b) to see the most convictions?".

Figures provided to jurors show the bank has made a modest $123,000 in servicing fees on the loans." And while you do a good job quoting the prosecutors theory about the bank, it's worth repeating that the jury disagreed pretty thoroughly.

Prosecutors often make offers that are coercive.