It does seem like an odd ruling reading it. So the DA can make a deal in a civil case to not pursue a criminal case? I need to digest this one more.

teedubbya wrote:

Are pudding pops still a thing? Kinda want one too

Sunoverbeach wrote:

No. The DA only prosecutes criminal cases and has zero to do with civil cases.

Here, the original/previous DA announced an agreement that there would not be prosecution. The subsequent DA ignored the agreement, resurrected the case and put him in jail. On appeal of that conviction, the state supreme court said that the original/previous DA's agreement not to prosecute- was binding on the subsequent DA. In other words: "A deal is a deal."

As a result, the conviction was ruled to be null and void at it's beginning (ab initio). All the crap about the cops/prosecutors not giving him proper Miranda warnings never got considered. Neither did the issue of whether the unrelated rape claims testimony should have been allowed. It was my opinion that the unrelated rape testimony was improper and that he would walk because of it anyway.

rfenst wrote:

Deal was BS, but a deal is a deal.

Abrignac wrote: