Why prosecutors strike plea bargains
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting piece today explaining the reasoning behind plea agreements, both from the prosecutor's and the defense lawyer's points of view.
![]() |
|
Scam State: Series warns readers about fraud | Main | Want to learn more about money? Here are some good places to start »
The Orlando Sentinel has an interesting piece today explaining the reasoning behind plea agreements, both from the prosecutor's and the defense lawyer's points of view.
The comments to this entry are closed.
10:34--Tell us what it is you found so interesting in the transcript. Here's an excerpt from the story I wrote about the sentencing:
He stood at a wooden lectern flanked by his lawyers as Judge Sharp went through the plea agreement point by point, asking him if he did what the government accused him of doing.
"Yes," Pearlman replied over and over in a clear voice. Yes, he lied about investors' funds being FDIC-insured. Yes, he lied about having a $50-million trust fund. Yes, he gave banks phony tax returns. Yes, he used a dead man's name on company documents. Yes, he understood that he was pleading guilty.
Periodically Pearlman elaborated, sometimes referring to unnamed accomplices. When Sharp asked if Pearlman had prepared the false financial statements attributed to a fictitious account firm, Pearlman replied, "They were prepared by someone else for us."
Sharp asked Pearlman several times about the money he raised. Pearlman said he spent it on "different investments, different expenses I had." He said those included "artist development, living expenses, working capital" and costs at Church Street Station, where his companies had their headquarters.
Helen Huntley
Posted by: Helen Huntley | April 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM
What did Pearlman say?
Posted by: | April 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Charlie got a big hug from the Sarasota Herald Tribune a day or so ago with a glowing story of him at a Longboat Key film festival party...he was beaming for the camera with a.....woman..in hand. How do you spell smoke screen..say it ain't so Charlie.
Posted by: | April 16, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Well Peacock, there is no way in hell Lou would have won!!!!
Posted by: dianne | April 16, 2008 at 12:48 AM
The word is finally out on Charlie. In today's paper it was quoted that there were several aspects McCain would like from Charlie as a Vice President, one of them being that he gets MARRIED...Sorry Charlie, and the beat literally goes on.
Posted by: | April 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM
In lou's case, there's not much to wonder about...he would never be found not guilty.
----------------
"With the plea," Peacock said, "you never know if you would have won or not."
Posted by: | April 14, 2008 at 06:53 PM