QUOTE(Aquilla @ May 5 2005, 03:35 PM)
Thanks, Azure, I didn't know it had been a part of the plea agreement. It does seem somewhat strange however to me that they would execute a part of the plea agreement (dismissal of the two counts with prejudice) separately from executing the entire agreement. Seems to me that doing it all at once would preclude a problem like this.
It is problematic for the defense and prosecution in their maneuvering when dealing with a force they have no control over, the judge. In fact, a judge has the power to refuse to accept or allow a plea bargain entirely or tinker with the mechanics of whatever deals the prosecution and defense want to voluntarily enter into. The prosecution and defense are left trying to manage the proceedings as they progress, and in the present case it was appropriate for the two counts at issue to be dismissed at the same time that England was entering a guilty plea to the other seven.
However, I think that when the defense and prosecution return to the bargaining table, the prosecution isn't going to enter into any new "deals" without the defense acknowledging that the prosecution already dismissed those two counts, and demanding credit for it when assessing a new bargain acceptable to both sides.
In any case, I did read the article you cited and this Graner person sounds like a real piece of work to be sure! I guess I'm not sure what in the hell England's defense attorney was thinking by putting this guy on the stand. I don't see how it was in the best interest of his client to do that.
They probably thought there was more to gain by his appearance than to lose, and nobody (including the defense team, the defendant, and
the prosecution) foresaw this little twist with Graner's testimony. At this point, they're all
probably a little embarrassed, and have discovered they have a lot more work on their hands than they previously thought.