Hey 1Chump! I've missed you!:innocent:
Honestly, I do not know how plea deals work. Wouldn't SA know what Ron is going to say or testify to? Are you thinking that they know what he's going to say, and it is not going to jive with the evidence and information that they have, so therefore, Ron is being set up? If that's the case then, dropping Ron's 2 highest charges, was all part of the set up?
I don't know 1Chump, maybe you can help me understand it all. But this is what I think: I think that the SA knows exactly what Ron is going to say and testify to if there is ever a trial for Haleigh (which IMO they know is coming soon). I think that whatever Ron has told them is helping their case in some way. I always felt that Ron knew exactly what happened to his daughter but I also felt that he had direct involvement. But what if he didn't have any direct involvement and LE knows this? I think that when there is a trial for Haleigh, Ron will not go untouched. In exchange for his testimony I think that Ron will be charged with a lesser crime like obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence, you know, that kinda thing. I do not think that Ron is innocent in all this but I don't see the SA making a deal with someone who they felt was the "main" suspect in Haleigh's disappearance. Does that kinda thing happen often? I'm not sure.
IMO, Ron is guilty of something, what? I don't know. IMO, the SA knows of his guilt and they accepted the deal with Ron, to help seal their case against the "main" suspect in Haleigh's case. Like I said before, I think Ron will be charged with a lesser crime. Does that make any sense? Have I had one too many? LOL
I respect your thoughts and opinions, 1Chump.
Thank you....I'm afraid to write this in this case.
SA's do not allow someone to plead to lessor charges and be sentenced based on an agreement for testimony in a future trial. Once the person is sentenced, they have no control over that person any more. They cannot void the plea deal and ask that the dropped charges be reinstated. That is double jeopardy, ie you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. Once it is dropped those charges are gone.
They also usually do not allow the person to give a statement under oath then allow them to be sentenced prior to testimony at trail. Yes on the statement but not be sentenced prior to testimony. Again, once they are sentenced no way to insure they will testify to the same thing even with a statement. The person can commit perjury. Sure they have the statement to prove perjury. I'm not sure about Florida perjury laws but perjury charges usually would not be equal to the dropped charges either in time sentenced and minimum mandatory. So I cannot see them willing to trade those two drug charges for possible future perjury charges. More importantly, a change in testimony could help a potential defendant get reasonable doubt.
As far as what Ron will testify too. Either Shoemaker told the SA the gist of what Ron will testify too or Shoemaker allowed Ron to tell the SA off the record what he knows. Either way, there is no way to make sure until he is under oath. IMO, I do think the SA would require Ron to give a statement under oath, in front of a court reporter, probably video also, with LE asking questions. Just to get Ron on record but again that does not mean he will give the same testimony.
I can see four possibilities for the plea agreement.
(1) They continue the sentencing date until AFTER Ron gives testimony at a future trial. In a way this benefits Ron because he stays in jail instead of going to prison now. His sentenced is reduced for time served at the jail. But I cannot believe a SA would agree to this when no charges have been filed for Haleigh's case..the one Ron agreed to testify in, without Ron giving a statement under oath now. But Ron testifies in a trial and has to admit to a plea deal dependant on his testimony....jurors may not see him as credibile....IMO, especially the father of the child. Jurors tend to look at plea deals as you are trying to save yourself so you are more apt to lie and say what the SA wants you to say. With the father of the child making a deal, I just do not see any jury looking at any testimony from him favorably.
(2) Ron pleads to all charges with the SA agreeing that if he adheres to the plea deal, after the trial, the SA will ask the court for a reduction in sentencing and/or charges. They cannot drop charges then add them back in after sentencing (double jeopardy) but they can ask for reduction in time and/or charges after sentencing. You are not being charged twice for the same crime but getting less than the chrages. That seems to not be the case as the plea was to the 3 lessor charges.
(3) He pleads to the three lessor and gets sentenced but the other two are continued until he testifies. If Ron adheres to the plea agreement, they will then drop these charges. Again, this may hurt Ron's credibility in front of the jury because he has to admit to a deal that is dependant on his testimony. Also, this would put Ron in prison. Most people would rather serve "prison" time in jail.
(4) The most likely to me is they have agreed to drop the two bigger charges and allow Ron to plead to the lessor charges based on Ron answering LE questions under oath truthfully now and giving testimony later. Although this is risky if they do not catch Ron in a lie...they are willing to risk it. Because Ron has no idea what evidence they have. His testimony has to be in line with any evidence. But even if they do not catch him in lie, the deal is only on the drug charges.
Unless I am completely wrong. If the SA and LE actually believe that Ron has no involvement, I will be shocked. Because otherwise, there would be nothing that I can see that he could testify too. He can only testify to personal knowledge.
Remember Ron does not have immunity with Haleigh. IMO, this is just about getting Ron to give a statement in Haleigh's since he has not talked to LE since he hired Shoemaker.
Also, the SA cannot promises a sentence...only ask the court for the minimum time. The Judge has full discretion in sentencing. The SA can recommend 15 years and the Judge can give the max.
