Not sure how much intelligence I'll get from this board. But I was wondering if anyone could explain the whole 'padding charges' thing to me. What exactly was Linda doing, and how was it illegal? Wasn't she only taking issues from previous existing cases? What's wrong with that?
shareYou can't use information from closed cases, I'm guessing...I don'tknow that much about law myself...but in Candy's file she was using cases that were closed and no longer existed in the eyes of the law, just to make it look like she had a long serious record and deserved 17 years for prostitution.
shareWouldn't the judge have read up on the case though? Especially one that lands the person in jail for 17+ years? Plus once a case is closed does it suddenly not exist in the eyes of the law? Isn't it just 'closed'? If a woman is in court numerous times for prostitution, I don't see the problem in telling the judge that the person has had past court cases with prostitution.
shareLike I said, I don't know much about the law, but in the show Law and Order it's often brought up that you cannot bring up a defendent's prior bad acts in a current trial, not unless you're trying to establish a pattern that the person is a serial felon like a rapist or a murderer or something.
shareShe was padding Candy's file with charges that were never her's to begin with. They were from other cases outside of her's. That is why it was illegal. She was basically committing perjury. The previous charges were from another person's file.
JOE TYRIA
Creed Wolf Productions
Silver Creed Wolf Music (BMI)
[email protected]
It would be really difficult to do that in many instances, so that plot point is probably part of the willing suspension of disbelief. Also, remember that Candy didn't show up for the hearing. Not good in the eyes of the Court. I figured the "trick" who picked her up had the bench warrant issued to bring her in, but it was never mentioned. But her failure to appear probably annoyed the judge to the point where there would have been no leniency or understanding of her situation.
I worked in my County District Attorney's Office and with the degree of computerized information available now, it would be almost impossible to do that. There are software programs customized to show info on the defendant's rap sheet.
But - one thing that fits with how the padding is shows is that there are always handwritten police reports, victim statements, so she could have pulled some from closed files and padded the file, which is obviously what she did. But they would have had to have been files that were closed but not yet archived - she would never have been able to get to those.
Sure, someone could tamper with a computer program, but the DA's office's computers are so tightly watched, that any move on a particular computer leaves "footprints" and they would know who tampered with what.
"...truth against the world..." - attributed to Boudicca of the Iceni
In court cases, you can refer to solved/closed cases when you are trying to prove your point, especially if the judge denys something to be stated, for example you'll hear a lawyer say "I would like to turn to the case of such and such vs such and such". Every lawyer does that. But in Linda's case, what I think she was doing was transferring information from "Sarah's" records over to Candy's records which is definitely illegal.
shareNot sure how much intelligence I'll get from this board.
^^^^ PREACH!
I'm Beyonce' I AIN'T no Kelly Rowland
While it did kind of come off as rude. I hink she meant that since she was addressing an online community and not a forum of law scholars she assumed that there could be alot of uneducated guesses offered answers. Like I said, that comment was a bit rude, but I tried not to read too much into it and give her the benefit of the doubt :)
Yes, I make spelling mistakes often as a result of using IMDB on mobile devices :)
I was offended by the comment myself because that was rather rude and unnecessary but to answer the question... What I gathered is that Linda was not only using the defendants current file but padding it or joining it with other people's files to make it look like one big file. That way when she goes before the judge, the judge, not having the time to go through the records in the file, will assume that they all belong to the person who was currently on trial, making the defendant seem as though he/she has a long history of criminal activity, when they may only be a first time offender. It's basically a con but I can't see how a lawyer could be prosecuted, unless the judge asks specifically if that whole file belongs to that defendant and they lie about it. Otherwise it seems like it's more of a matter of ethics on the lawyers part but the judge is the one who's at fault for making the assumption in the first place, instead of making sure.
All typos and misspellings courtesy of a public educational system.
Back in the 80s and 90s, it was normal for cops to pin unresolved crimes on blacks. For example, in NYC Black males who were brought in for petty crimes like petty larceny or brandishing a firearm or something, would clear their files by also tacking on similar crimes that were unresolved. No evidence required, because they scared the guys to plea or they could face life in prison if they tried to fight the extra charges.
So the petty larceny guy had to plea/confess to 3-5 other charges of unresolved burglaries and vandalism. The guy brandishing a firearm plead/confessed to serious crimes of robbing and muggings.
The most famous case was the NY Central Park Five. Five Teens and a pre-teen back in the early 90s were charged and convicted of beating and raping a white female. They were arrested because they were in the area at the time, but there was no evidence, no forensics no nothing, but her testimony. Based on that they were put away and spent their entire youth from teens to their late 20s in prison, before the real perp admitted to the crime.
What did the prosecutor (who was retired) have to say? "Meh. They were up to no good anyway".