I think that a plea agreement that forces a defendant to waive constitutional rights is itself unconstitutional. . . it’s self-serving for the prosecution who uses it to protect itself from error or deliberate misconduct. That cannot be waived. . . Sydney needs to immediately appeal Sullivan’s decision.
“I think that a plea agreement that forces a defendant to waive constitutional rights is itself unconstitutional. . . it’s self-serving for the prosecution who uses it to protect itself from error or deliberate misconduct. That cannot be waived. . . Sydney needs to immediately appeal Sullivan’s decision.”
“Sydney” can only appeal after sentencing, and the appeal was waived as part of the plea, which rules out reviewing Sullivan’s decision. And “Sydney” does not want to raise Sullivan’s decision because it credibly accuses her of unethical plagiarism, and otherwise destroys her pretensions in detail.
Contrary to the impression “Sydney” gave to Flynn and the rest of the world, she did not make a valid legal argument in “defending” Flynn, she engaged in political grandstanding which (very, very understandably) inflamed the emotions of many non-lawyers.
Flynn was promised no incarceration. Now he faces incarceration. “Sydney” did that to Flynn.
And waivers of Constitutional rights have been examined literally thousands of times in every court in America. You need to read what the law says about that to understand that it is not a simple matter.