“In the United States, racialized police misconduct is endemic. Law enforcement officers too often cover up their abuses of BIPOC [Black, Indigenous, and Other People Of Color] with false ‘cover charges’ such as resisting arrest. The victims of police cover charges then suffer arrest, jail, court appearances, and all the collateral consequences (legal fees, lost wages and jobs) that come with prosecution. However, because the charges were trumped-up, no meaningful evidence exists, and the case is eventually dismissed.
“This might seem like a win, but in jurisdictions that apply an indications-of-innocence standard, it isn’t. Although the falsely accused person no longer has to defend against criminal charges, they can’t seek justice for having been falsely prosecuted in the first place. This leaves the victim of police cover charges with no meaningful recourse.”
My only quibble with the article is that Professor Rossman doesn’t mention deportation as a possible consequence of these convictions. By the way, I took Criminal Procedure from Professor Rossman thirty-plus years ago. He’s an excellent professor.
Prosecutorial discretion has been a prerogative of the executive for centuries.
The question of what constitutes “a particular social group” for purposes of asylum is one of the most difficult and vexing in immigration law.
And a new twist to the insanity defense.
That probably depends on where you stand. All I know is that you should only read those sections of the Internal Revenue Code that deal with international taxes if you have no regard for your own sanity. The wounds on my brain from taking International Tax at law school over thirty years ago have not healed.