I'm continuing my review of the investigation into the most recent binder of findings. Something I've noticed as I have read is facts can be presented very well in a case, but may not be as accurate as they should be, especially when it concerns allegations of a criminal nature against someone. In other cases, I've noticed this as well. This job has become somewhat of an editing internship so far--I double check the investigation and related material, such as Grand Jury proceedings, for inaccuracies and to see if the facts match up. Before this internship began, I thought in the legal system that people would be much more thorough, but, as my work so far has proven, this is not always the case.
Which is a pretty scary thing to say. Literally, I am reading slapped together testimony and evidence that prosecution has put together that hardly applies to this defendant. I realize that there is a lot of it, but--ever hear the saying quality over quantity? Now this evidence could convict half of the West Virginia defendants fairly easily, but our defendant was a full state away and isn't even mentioned in the majority of this material. I've narrowed it down from binders full of paper four inches thick to a few pages so far. I'm getting the impression that some of these charges should never have the defendant's name on them. Some of them are arguable.
I see the point of all of this. This is how this office whittles away at the charges, because those mistakes could cost the prosecution. An investigation needs to be airtight, and the actions of the other defendants in this case can impact the person we represent. It's just a shame that no one originally was careful enough to realize that this person may not qualify for some of the charges. In the end, his reputation and his wallet suffer.
No comments:
Post a Comment