Hacker News Reader

Comment by mchannon | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't hold it against him that he pled guilty. The government has unlimited resources, and he didn't. Innocent people plead guilty every day.

View on HN

The government absolutely does not have anything near unlimited resources. I've been listening to the Ken White podcast All the President's Lawyers and something he repeatedly says is just how shockingly few criminals, especially white collar criminals, actually get prosecuted because there's simply no budget to go after them.

With respect to Ken White, that’s a load of crap. Between AUSA’s, FBI, CJA’s, FD’s, and judge’s office, at least $0.3M in my case and counting.

That's kind of the point. When they go after someone they're going to spend the money. No point spreading resources so thinly that they can't prosecute anyone properly.

That’s the opposite of your first point. When they have no trouble spending the money, they have no trouble spending the money.

Yes and no.

White collar crimes are very expensive to investigate, prosecute, and keep the attention of the jury. High-profile clients and attorneys invite a lot of red tape, expensive to cut through, so they don't bother unless conviction is certain. Failure is embarrassing and makes the State look weak.

But Ken White is living in a bubble if he thinks the State won't spend the money to go after any low-hanging fruit it can reach.

He said exactly that: it's shocking how few criminals get prosecuted. Like, at all.

He's also posted a statement on his website admitting to the crime. https://www.malwaretech.com/public-statement

It's likely part of his plea bargain is that he needs to publicly admit to the crimes.

This is absolutely a problem. America has a system which incites prosecutors to "win" in court rather than actually trying to serve justice, because that is how they advance. Plea bargains are a perverse way to keep this up.

Plea bargain here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5972658-Marcus-Hutch...

From the deal: "The government agrees to make no recommendation regarding the ultimate sentence to be imposed; however, the government remains free to take a position with respect to any fact or factor pertinent to the sentencing decision consistent with this agreement and to advise the court that the government's failure to make a sentencing recommendation should not be construed as a recommendation for leniency or severity."

The guy got screwed.

What is it that you think that quote means? That's boilerplate language. The plea agreement is in fact very detailed and precise about the sentencing range Hutchins faces (it's relatively low).

Prosecutors sometimes offer 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements, where the sentence is defined exactly and the judge can only agree or refuse.

This was definitely not that. It is the very opposite of precise.

The PSR will be generated, and the judge will decide on the sentence, ranging from deportation without incarceration to 5 years.

If your doctor told you you had 0-5 years left to live, inclusive, you wouldn’t call that detailed and precise, would you?

Realistically, can they avoid criticism here? They offer a sentence -> they're only offering a high sentence/they are forcing him to accept a longer sentence. They don't offer him a sentence -> they should have offered him a sentence.

No, I would actually have been more okay with a sentence. It might have been a little more straightforward.

That's not how this works. The prosecution and the defendant can agree to about what they'll ask for, but it's ultimately up to the judge to sentence. Prosecutors can't "offer him a sentence".

Yes they can. It’s called an 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.

Most don’t or won’t.

The judge still has to agree to a C plea. And, as you mention, they're rare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com