r/ProsecutorTalk

https://preview.redd.it/as4cjzboj9th1.png?width=751&format=png&auto=webp&s=2a0df92a6ad44b3c37d66349a741379aef62c004

Good morning.

Long time lurker. 20 years in LE, approximately 14 of those so far in mid-upper management of large agency. I have most likely reached my career ceiling and have been struggling with a plan for a second career. I was hired young and now have young kids who will be middle and elementary aged kids when I can retire with a full pension in 5 years.

Solid amount of courtroom experience on the criminal side testifying as an LEO. Used as an expert witness many times and the thrill of being in the courtroom has been awesome as long as I can remember. I loved doing my job to help true victims and am trying to figure out if I can parlay that into a potential second career as a prosecutor.

Also was unfortunately a defendant in a federal civil case for a deadly UOF incident. We were successful to jury verdict and I developed a sincere interest and understanding of all my counsel did to prepare us for success over a 3 year litigation period.

A good friend went through Syracuse JDi program as a nurse, married and with kids and is thriving in PI litigation. I have discussed my potential interest with him and he has encouraged me to seriously consider it.

I have zero interest in a second career in another LE agency. My back is shot from 20 years of body armor and gunbelt days. I have had a few close friends killed in the line of duty, one fatal OIS and tired of toxic upper management. Ready for a change. I am fairly well rounded with patrol and major crimes experience.

My wife is supportive of an undertaking a large endeavor like this.

My ask is - any current prosecutors on board here that are former LEOs?

Looking into Pros/cons of a second career with a JD.

Thank you in advance.

.

Hypothetical: John is a deer hunter. One day, John is out in the woods of your county doing deer hunter stuff when he sees a Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti/Skunk Ape/etc. Knowing how important the remains of such a creature would be to the cryptozoological community, John shoots it in the back, killing it instantly. John loads the remains into his pickup truck and drives straight to the biology department of the local university, traumatizing several pre-med students in the process.

Upon a fulsome scientific analysis of the creature's anatomy, physiology, genetic makeup, and general vibes, the creature is determined to belong to the genus *homo*. In effect, that means the creature is as closely related to you and I as are, say, a neanderthal or Billie Eilish.

Do you charge John with murder? Is the fact that the creature is in our same genus sufficient for you to determine whether or not the creature is a "person?" If not, what facts would you want to know? What if it could talk? What if it had a religion? What if it created art? What if it could produce fertile offspring with a person? What if it could leverage cloud-based AI platforms to produce actionable business insights, thereby increasing shareholder value?

Even if you think it's a chargeable murder, would you discretionarily decline the case due to the massive scientific advances created by John's decision to kill it?

Have fun! This hypo keeps me up at night.

A guy who was so committed to faking a serious intellectual disability that he spent ~7 mo in custody between the jail and the state mental hospital was FINALLY found to be MALINGERING, and then fit to stand trial.

I had a very good reason from the very beginning to believe he was faking it (I literally have a reverse Keyser Söze moment on BWC video), but he was committed to the bit. In the end, he wasn't quite smart enough to fake it forever in front of state hospital staff who are always watching.

The judge finding him fit and putting his case back on the regular criminal docket was a top 10 most vindicating career moment for me. We had to push back against the case just getting dismissed several times.

(Possession of CSAM, if you're wondering. Not a lot of it. But enough.)

I saw a video from CBS a couple hours ago in which a man, I think it might have been a prosecutor or somebody from a government office said that they’re looking at a charging four of the men with rape, but the other three won’t be charged. How does that even make sense? Shouldn’t it be all of them or none of them? How can all of them do the same thing but only four of them get charged?