I have been reading a 98 page indictment that cites 161 alleged, criminal acts. But I noticed three groups: Criminal acts within the County of the prosecutor. Criminal acts within the State of the prosecutor. Criminal acts outside of the State of the prosecutor. The first set are clearly within the scope of the County prosecutor. The second set, are probably within the County prosecutor's scope. So a criminal act that has bled over the County line could be fairly handled by the County prosecutor. For example, a bank robbery in that County with a high-speed chase into an accident in an adjacent County, the accident could be handled by the first County prosecutor. County boundaries should be somewhat 'fuzzy' when more than one County is involved. But what about out of State? Some of criminal acts occurred in another State. Although relevant to a pattern of a criminal enterprise, it isn't clear that a County prosecutor should prosecute these acts. Perhaps some of our legal experts might discuss if such boundary crossing is or can be handled by a County prosecutor? Now I may be incorrectly mixing the 161 criminal acts with the 41 counts. The counts cite specific laws that were violated in that County and State. I did not see an out of State act cited in the counts. This suggests the out of State acts are not County charges but peripheral. Thoughts? Bob Wilson ps. I am curious about how the law works, not any alleged political content. Regardless, I've self reported to the moderator(s) as a heads up.
Right, I believe those other acts are distinct from the charged counts, and are not being prosecuted by the prosecutor in this hypothetical, anonymous county. Instead, they may be mentioned because this particular anonymous state's RICO statute has a threshold question of whether the charged criminal acts were isolated or were part of an ongoing pattern of activity, and the statute allows taking account of conduct elsewhere, conduct that hasn't been criminally charged, even conduct that on its own may not always be criminal, when it reveals a pattern of conduct in furtherance of the charged criminal enterprise. The details on how the law works would probably be found in the hypothetical state's RICO statute.
There are so many layers to this case . Harvard law (emeritus) professor Alan dershowitz, who; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz gives somewhat of a treatise & insight here; Indictment IV: my legal analysis of the RICO prosecution. - YouTube I've admired his legal analysis for many decades - all the way back to law school. .
That's an argument the lawyers for former White House chief of staff is making in their likely failed effort to have his case moved to federal court. His lawyers rightly argue that his work to defraud the voters of Georgia happened at the White House and that there's precedent for state's not having the right to charge and convict federal leaders who are doing there job. However, the chief of staff's work in Georgia didn't require him to be in the state to break state laws, which is in part why RICO laws and wire fraud laws were created: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/17/mark-meadows-georgia-charges-federal-court/70613283007/ Likely the bigger issue happens on or before next Friday when a judge has to determine if Trump is released on bail when Georgia law doesn't allow that if there's evidence that the defendent will tamper with witnesses and the trial and there's evidence that he does that almost daily. And if they really do lock him up his braindead fans will go crazy while the majority will celebrate. And I'm sure Fulton County is more concerned about Trump fans going crazy rather than the rest of us celebrating that its finally over for good.
And specific to Georgia's RICO law "ongoing pattern of activity" means it only has to happen twice, whereas in other jurisdictions it has to be more than twice to be valid." But more importantly there's a mandatory 5 year sentence on the primary charge against these 19 people and Georgia doesn't allow their governor or a US president to pardon people. Only their parole board has that authority.
Thanks! Sometimes the law can be obtuse and in this case, I think we just have to live the ambiguity of an out-of-state Acts and in-county Counts. Any conviction will be under the Counts and the Acts can be treated as supporting evidence of malfeasance. Bob Wilson
