Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
I find it very troubling that the US system allows for the delay and likely ending of a criminal matter pending possible settlement of the matter with a payment.
In Canada, using the threat or possibility of a criminal sanction to obtain money is called extortion.
The two should operate entirely independently.
I'd like to hear some criminal lawyers' takes on this. Is MBates in the house?
|
So I take a brief pause from my prep for day 2 of my murder case to see what's what on CP and I'm getting a direct plea for my input!
Naturally, my ego being sufficiently pumped up, I feel compelled to oblige...
I have to say, what I found was rather surprising.
New York State Bar Ethics Opinion 821 says that so long as a District Attorney is satisfied he or she has probable cause to support a charge, and that it is provable, then they can propose a civil resolution in lieu of a criminal charge:
http://www.nysba.org/CustomTemplates...t.aspx?id=5220
On its face, one would think that if a DA is of the view they have probable cause and a provable case they should prosecute it...not drop it in favor of a civil settlement.
If this is indeed what is currently going on in the Kane matter it certainly raises some interesting questions...which I don't have time to pose or answer tonight...so I will leave this little landmine on the board and let everyone blow up over its implications...if it is being accurately reported.
As for the Canadian jurisdictions I have practiced in, I have seen on rare occasions a Crown Prosecutor agree to withdraw charges in exchange for restitution being paid...but it is always risky to connect the resolution of a criminal case to a civil outcome.