I recall someone who was prov en innocent of murder through DNA evidence. Don't remember who but they had been jail for many years, and had entered a plea bargain to avoid a death sentence.
Actually asking about, but not entering into a plea bargain is a good way to feel out the prosecutor. To find out how confident they are.
Few people who are addicted to painkillers have a criminal investigation against them.
No, because unless there is evidence of them trafficking, they are not typically subject to any further investigation which further illustrates the point. I will admit if Rush were involved with the drug ring including Wilma Cline and her husband, there would be cause for investigation. It is fairly apparent at this point that was a dry hole for the SAO.
If Rush is guilty of a crime, I will not attempt to defend him and would expect him to suffer a penalty appropriate to the offense. However, in this case, the SAO is not investigating to find out who committed a crime. They are not investigating to prove who committed the crime. They are investigating to see if they can find a crime. That is wrong and should not occur in the United States of America, to anyone!
I wonder if the crime rate in southern Florida is so low that law enforcement best improves the public safety by going in an elaborate search for a possible crime. I would think they would have plenty of criminal complaints they could act on that would actually involve improving public safety. But what do I know? I am sure the SAO feels in its heart that they improve the safety of the residence of southern Florida by establishing definitively whether Rush "told Doctor 2 that Doctor 1 wrote him a prescription 2 week ago."