I'm very conflicted:
1) "Innocent until proven guilty" and "wow, that timing sure is convenient".
2) LOL. grabs a bucket of popcorn
1) "Innocent until proven guilty" and "wow, that timing sure is convenient".
2) LOL. grabs a bucket of popcorn
From Ken: If Reuters was there through independent investigation, then good for them. But if Reuters was there because of a tip from law enforcement, then I'd like to ask a couple of questions....
Who leaked the time and place of the arrest? Was it an FBI agent, a prosecutor, staff, a coordinating local cop? How high up in the government did the decision to leak the arrest go? Did the leak violate the law? Did it violate the defendant's rights? What was the government's purpose in leaking the time and place of the arrest? How does this instance fit into the pattern of which arrests get leaked and which don't? Which nonviolent defendants without records get arrested, and which get summonsed in (or self-surrender through arrangement with their lawyers), and why? What impact does a font-page picture of a defendant in handcuffs have on the jury pool? Is that impact a feature, or a bug, of leaking it? Was the leak intended to inflict extra-judicial humiliation and punishment on the defendant? If the government lies about whether or not it leaked, would you still keep it secret?
https://popehat.com/2015/12/17/an-open-letter-to-reuters-rep...
In this case the Market is Martin Shkreli, and what he's willing to bear is likely everything he owns.
I won't lose any sleep when this guy goes to prison for a long time, but no sense doing nonsense that will only mildly inconvenience him and give potential grounds for appeal.
I might be naive, but I'm under the impression that the book doesn't get thrown at white-collar criminals in the US.
what are the odds he just ends up on probation?
Personally, I think that impression (which is popular) is largely because A) white-collar criminals can typically afford better representation than someone e.g. accused of armed robbery; B) we're much more likely to hear about someone who embezzled $30 million getting off with a slap on the wrist than we are to hear about someone who broke into an empty apartment building getting a similarly light sentence.
You go to prison for getting caught lying during an investigation about white color crime.
It's largely a matter of whether the case is winnable. Then if he acts anything like his public persona suggests, I can't see too many prosecutors going easy on him, if he's abrasive or something? It's entirely possible they give him the Schwartz treatment.
What is the point of putting someone like this in prison? He wouldn't pose a threat to others if he were released immediately. He should be sentenced to spend his time and energy giving back to society.
I really want it to be true...