There were obviously facts with each defendant that were different and probably something that the defense could tear up in court. That is the only explanation--or the prosecution didn't like the jury venire for the McNeil trial? I'm surprised that they were able to get all of the evidence back from the various labs in this state so quickly. charged with Capital Murder on an unrelated incident. They ended up reducing the Cap Murder to manslaughter and Nolle Prosequi'd the possession of the dope and the gun. All they wanted him on was the death case. As a defense attorney, I would have tried to hold my client out as far as his co-defendants--most judges will do that without hesitation as they prefer the cases consolidated. Godwin should have pushed for a continuance. In my guys case, me holding out for the murder case to be resolved was a good thing for my client. He will come out of prison in 4 years with only 1 felony instead of 3.
Now, when I put on my regular citizen hat, I am glad he got 15 years and wish the others had, too.
Yeah, easy to see dropping dope and gun to get penalty for taking a life.
Here's the thing. I'm not
actually wondering about the ostensible 'excuse' for the difference in plea offers. Be there a relationship or not as to the difference in plea offers, Goodwin and Kitchens were not marquee recruits and McNeil was. Moseley, another less than stellar recruit has the Dyer connection. The elephant in the room is whether there was political influence (by Lee County's largest employer) exerted on the judicial process. A pressure such that the ones who would have been mostly likely to get improper benefits (and know where bodies are buried) are/were favored over the ones who would have been less likely to have received improper benefits. Meaning a lesser sentence for not raising a stink about things they know. I doubt even Auburn provides improper benefits to every player.
"There were obviously facts with each defendant that were different and probably something that the defense could tear up in court. That is the only explanation--or the prosecution didn't like the jury venire for the McNeil trial?"
Not the jury pool, as the 3 year deal had been on the table for quite some time per Ben Hand, McNeil attorney. Certainly there were differences in each defendant, but they
together committed an armed home invasion robbery. Period. Got caught with the goods and gun in the car seen leaving the scene, id'ed by witnesses and confessed. What Goodwin did is in no way SEVEN times worse than McNeil (who actually had the real gun).
Sure, the prosecution won in the Goodwin case and that may have been why they were not so strict with McNeil.
This statement might be where my ignorance of the legal system is showing. Winning the Goodwin case should (in my blue collar mind) have
, if anything, made the prosecution be MORE strict with McNeil.
We'll never know---but the wide disparity in plea deals offered (21 years vs 3 years) reeks of influence somewhere somehow for some reason. iyam.