[Devil_Anse]

Heck, no, they can't sue the state if there turns out not to be enough evidence that he was guilty!

Unless it was malicious prosecution, he can't do squat to the state! And certainly the Modesto Bee--why, they haven't even got standing to sue over this! What's it to THEM, whether Scott's guilty or not, whether there's evidence or not? Either way, they can report whatever there is to report!

And incidentally, in order to have a suit for malicious prosecution, you have to have been found NOT GUILTY. And this is NOT a malicious prosecution!

And besides, the state has immunity from suit when it is performing its governmental functions, such as prosecuting crimes, which is part of what it is supposed to do!!

[Jackie-O]

Do you think Wheat is afraid of me now?

[Sandylapper]

I guess I'm just thinking that someone out in the public might have come forward and refuted some part of their evidence if it had become public knowledge, and that Scott could say MPD and the judge were in collusion.

[Sandylapper]

What's it to THEM, whether Scott's guilty or not, whether there's evidence or not?

Just being a Pollyanna here, but I would hope that justice is what we are all seeking. That's what I really hate about criminal law--it's not about justice, it's about getting a criminal free--often by pointing at someone innocent--like a phantom cult. I heard Geoffrey Fieger say that he NEVER asks his client if he did whatever he is accused of. Must be a no-no in that profession. It's a game to them--who can make the most points. And this latest ploy to send Geraldo out is to "level the playing field". Makes me livid. That's why I try to think through what's going on and figure out what they (meaning defense), could possibly come up with next.