Quote:
Originally Posted by astrangerhere
I assume that there were pending state and federal charges. They plead to the first set, and sentencing was delayed until all other charges had been dealt with. I assume that there was some sort of deal in exchange for testimony. When defendants cut deals like this, usually DAs/Prosecutors will wait to make sure they get the testimony that they bargained for (re: the third guy charged) before they are sentenced. Once the sentence is passed, the defendants can change their story or refuse to testify against co-conspirators and it won't affect the deal. Likely many moving parts.
|
Not sure if that applies here. A bit of searching showed nothing that indicated the unnamed person/company the illegally obtained goods were sold to were charged or are going to be charged with any criminal offences. Likely their lawyers were able to argue they acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the way the goods were obtained, probably seasoned with a promise to be more careful in the future.
As for deals and lying, ask any Canadian about Karla Homolka. It became clear that she lied about damn near everything especially with the cache of video tapes that made it rather clear that she was not being compelled by Paul Bernardo but rather was a willing participant and leader in their rape and murder of at least three young girls including Homolka's sister. When this came out, the prosecutors in the case were all "we made a deal and we can't break it".