That's the kind of mindset that leads to inaccurate posts like the one you wrote.

It's the same kind of mindset that causes journalists and bloggers to feel justified in making shit up about the president -- who, after all, has much greater powers than prosecutors have.

Not a good mindset for a blogger, in my view.

I have a different mindset: that nobody should be victimized by people who make shit up. Even if they hold powerful positions. Even if other people in the same profession have done bad things.

I've been reading a disturbing number of instances where critics of prosecutors not only were wrong, but simply made shit up or credulously went along with people who made shit up. Including journalists and bloggers.

Yes, but I don't have the power to lock people up or ruin lives. And oddly enough, many prosecutors are virtually immune from any sort of negative fall out for their mis-deeds. So, I just can't muster any sympathy.

I've been reading a disturbing number of instances where critics of prosecutors not only were wrong, but simply made shit up or credulously went along with people who made shit up. Including journalists and bloggers.

Kudos to you for linking Beldar's critique of your post and for reconsidering your position.

"Beldar digs into this case . . ."

You mean, he read it.

Yes, I did google around for it, but didn't find much with terms like 'Foster', 'Edmunds v. Florida', and so forth, or I found so much that it was impossible to tell where the right information was. And note that Beldar actually hosts the decision on his own site. So the idea that it was easily accessible is sort of misleading.

It seems inconsistent at first glance, until you look for the underlying theme: Prosecutors Were Wrong.

Yes, there was that. I have to admit I've become rather disenchanted with prosecutors lately. I've been reading a disturbing number of instances where prosecutors not only were wrong, but simply make shit up or credulously going along with people who make shit up.

By relying The Nation, this site does a disservice to its readers. If you don't have enough conviction in your beliefs to present both sides, you automatically invalidate them

Actually, once I read Beldar's account and the documents he hosts on his site, I did post the other side. I'm still a little curious as to why the other Dillard seemed to avoid being charged with capital murder. I suppose pleading to a lesser charge is possible.

Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and (AG) Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court.

By relying The Nation, this site does a disservice to its readers. If you don't have enough conviction in your beliefs to present both sides, you automatically invalidate them

It seems inconsistent at first glance, until you look for the underlying theme: Prosecutors Were Wrong.

That part is consistent.

When I first started reading this, I thought that the death penalty opposition had found their holy grail of a death penalty being executed against someone who was clearly and unambiguously innocent (and the convicted saying they are innocent doesn't fall into that category). Instead it was "I don't think the law used was right, so Steve Veredon overrules the court and declares him innocent". And it ends up with "after getting a small taste of the testimony the court got, he was guilty, so why aren't we stringing up more people".

MSM move over, here comes the blogs.

Not guilty of murder, and likely to be the prosecutors star witness.

I admit I hadn't really been following this discussion until this morning.

But there are a couple of reasons the other two guys may not have been charged with a capital crime.

#1 They both may have opted to plead guilty for lesser sentences.

#2 They also may have been offered plea deals that lowered their sentences, in exchange for testimony against the other two men.

Also, it is possible the driver of the car, was offered a plea deal as well, but rejected it, however, if these guys were driving around for hours robbing people at gunpoint, that indicates a pretty active participation in the robberies, and I think does indicate at least some assumption of the risk that somebody was going to get killed and invoke a felony murder charge, if caught.

"As Michael Demmon's points out, if you picked up a hitchhiker and he killed somebody, jumped back in your car, and out of fear and stupidity you drove off, then you'd be guilty of murder too."

No, you wouldn't.

You mean, he read it.