as a public defender, i know as an empirical fact that innocent people plead guilty. but, today, it really hit home where a client i personally knew admitted to a crime that never happened. this is a story of prosecutors coercing innocent people into pleading guilty. [thread]

defendant is charged with raping all three of his ex-girlfriend's daughters. this is a mandatory life imprisonment case in Florida due to the age of the daughters. /2

here's the thing: it didn't happen. when defendant broke up with the mother, she warned him that she was going to "ruin his life." the stories of rape were physically impossible, none of them matched, and someone who lived in the house with them said it didn't happen. /3

The trial for the rape of daughter 1 goes to trial. Because we hate sex offenders, the rules of evidence in sex cases are lax, so all three daughters get to testify about their own so-called abuse, even though only one rape is technically on trial. /4

the defense is that the daughters are making it up at the behest of their mother. so, the jury's task is to decide whether they all are lying or they are all telling the truth. there's no scenario where one happened, but not the other two. /5

Jury returns a not guilty verdict. This means they didn't believe any of the victims; they don't think any of the rapes happened. But remember, defendant was only on trial for one of the daughters, so the other two are pending. /6

State refuses to drop the other cases. They offer the defendant a felony conviction and time-served (1 year). (Remember, this was a mandatory life case, and now the state is okay with a single year.) Defendant has immigration consequences; he can never come back to the US. /7

Defendant takes the plea, even though he knows he didn't do it and even though the jury agreed with him, because the victims have now gone through the trial experience and get refine their stories to make them seem more plausible. Not worth the risk of a life sentence. /8

An ethical prosecutor would have dropped the other two cases. Seeking a conviction on the other two counts disrespects the jury's verdict. The fact that the prosecutor was willing to settle for time-served indicates that they don't think the defendant is a threat to society. /9

But, despite what they claim, the prosecutor mantra is to win at all costs, not seek justice. /10

I'm in one of the more "progressive" jx. Presumably this is the best of the best.