Bail does not make sense now. She's in prison and cannot get out.
I vaguely remember from school something about two people who commit the same crime cannot be charged differently and/or receive different sentences. There are exceptions but in this case, I cannot see anything that would fall under an exception.
I'm thinking maybe they filed as cruel and unusual punishment that Misty received a harsher penalty than Donna when without Donna, Misty could not have committed that particular crime. Donna could have committed the crime without Misty as Donna is the one who secured the pain medication and Donna was the one who received the money. Donna was allowed to plea to a lessor charge without any action on her part. Misty was not given the same deal.
That also may apply to the Putnam charges as well. We won't know for sure until sentencing. However, it looks like everyone...Hope, Tommy and Ron were all allowed to plea to lessor charges while Misty was not.
That is the only thing I can think of that might fall under the cruel and unusual punishment.
Hi Chump, I agree it probably cannot be about bail at this stage. It does have to do with constitutional rights, no doubt. And no doubt Misty feels many of her rights were violated; prisoners typically do.
As for a plea deal, the only one of the players allowed to plead to a lesser charge is Donna. Ron's deal got two of his charges dropped but it also required he plead GUILTY to the remaining three charges, and none of his remaining three charges were reduced.
Tommy had one charged either reduced or dropped but he saw no reduction to his trafficking charge. Hope was offered nothing in return for her plea; she pled as charged.
All had initially pleaded Not Guilty except Hope. She pleaded Nolo right away (and I still cannot figure out why). Everyone haggled with the state except for Hope. But the only ones to get any kind of deal were Ron and Donna.
Now, with that said, I agree 100% with you about the different treatment for Donna and Misty. They committed the crime together. In court, Donna stated that she gave pills to Misty "and those were the pills that Misty sold." Misty set up and did the deal, but Donna was Misty's supplier in that transaction. Both were equally charged. But in the end Misty's charge stood, while Donna's charge was reduced.
Donna was given leniency in exchange for her Nolo plea; Misty was not treated the same way, even though both were equally involved in the crime. In cases like this, one defendant is often given a deal to testify against the other to ensure a conviction. Usually it is the lesser-involved party that is offered the deal. Donna did go into court and claim Misty sold the pills. However, she also admitted she had supplied Misty with said pills.
Considering the testimony of one was not necessary to convict the other in this case, the state allowing Donna to plead to a lesser charge while not allowing Misty the same consideration is biased and unfair. And it may be viewed by a higher court as discrimination.
I think you are on to something, Chump!
