> The result of the indictment was that she had to perform 60 hours of community service
I see a lot of discussion about who is at fault. Everyone sucks here, but my first question is who is this judge that did not throw this out in 2 seconds?? Cops, DAs, neighbors' bad behavior is one thing. Like what.
> The idea that there is some agreement for say 5 years recommended is not on the table in this type of situation.
That is absolutely the situation. That’s why you take the deal. They got her to plead to seven counts! There’s almost certainly an agreed-upon recommended sentencing.
She's pleading to what, seven major felonies as I recall? And there is no agreement on a reduced sentence aside from "the prosecution will ask for lesser sentences" which doesn't mean the judge is going to agree. She didn't get some kind of a sweet deal, she got the "we have enough to put you in jail until you're elderly, but if you make it easy we'll ask the judge to reduce it so middle age" agreement. They clearly have the upper hand.
> presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges
Yeah, the media shitshow...
There were no DeepFakes, a few text messages raising concerns about some young girls' behavior and a DA running around during an election year slandering this woman to get votes. Oh, and a lying teenager capitalizing on the drama to get movie and book deals.
The result: a woman who's life was forever turned upside down and found guilty by an "impartial" jury.
> I'm just surprised she was even prosecuted at all in a place that has so many people that would spend so much effort sorta-semi-defending that kind of behavior.
I agree. Given how much it costs to prosecute someone...
> Nothing she did deserves what happened. Nothing.
she was convicted of harrasment of minors by a jury in a court of law. presumably there was supporting evidence of the harrasment charges, and that's not something that the article disputes.
> There is an appeal, so let's see if she really belongs there.
I think you're missing the point, yes it is legal for anyone to appeal a conviction.
In the US (and I assume most of the rest of the world) that is dependent on your ability to pay a lawyer to do that for you and your likely outcome is impacted by the price you are able to pay for that lawyer.
The other point is, this is a conversation about a two tier justice system. Rich people get to spend their appeal in a mansion, poor people sit in prison waiting on an appeal.
So I would say, she's been convicted of a crime and has been given time for it, send her to prison like everyone else.
Once her appeal is successful, then let her go back to that life of luxury.
She received an 11-year sentence last November but she's apparently a free woman until April 27th of this year.
Can someone who knows more about the American legal system explain this to me? Why is this possible? I assumed that when you're sentenced you get taken to jail pretty much immediately.
(Yes, I'm sure the short answer is just "because she has lots of money", but what are the details? What exactly did she spend it on to buy an extra 5 months of freedom?)
> Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off.
It's not bullshit. Manning was basically obstructing justice by disobeying a court order. If sanctions like this didn't exist, people wouldn't have any incentive follow court orders at all, and the court system would become ineffective and break down.
Also, I'm not sure if the concept of "charges" is even relevant here. Aren't those leveled by a prosecutor? In contempt cases the judge is directly punishing noncompliance with court proceedings.
> I'm kinda happy for her that her punishment is fairly mild - I mean after all she'll have to live with the guilt for the rest of her life - but she's definitely responsible for it.
This is an odd statement. She killed someone. Feeling bad about it is irrelevant imo. And living with guilt is not the equivalent of time served.
> THE COURT: And I say that because no one here knows for sure what your sentence will be -- your lawyers don't, the government doesn't, I don't -- because that's not going to be determined until a later date, after I get a presentence report from the probation department, I calculate the guidelines, I get submissions from you, the government and the probation department.
> But even if your sentence is different from what you had hoped for or expected, you won't be allowed to withdraw your plea on that basis.
IANAL but this makes it look like the case is so strong against her that she's just throwing herself at the mercy of the courts. All the cooperation buys her is brownie points with the judge, who might decide to make an example out of her anyway.
They didn't even really have to flip her, she just walked in the front door.
> Her diversion program required 65 hours of community service, which Wallace completed at an early childhood center. The program mandated that she only work there during the weekends, when there were no kids around for her to endanger.
"for her to endanger"?? The craziness started with the neighbor, continued with the cops, but then also through to sentencing!
The judge is free to dismiss the charge, if he thinks it's absurd. How did she end up with a conviction?
reply