No. of Recommendations: 8
One aspect of Sidney Powell' plea deal reached in the Georgia case generating questions is the existance of any deal she may have also cut with Jack Smith who is prosecuting the federal case on election fraud.
If a defendant faces both state and federal charges regarding the same general acts, anything they say in one case can be used in the other -- it's not double jeopardy. In Powell's case, she had an actual indictment against her for state criminal charges. She was also REFERENCED as a co-conspirator (#3) in the federal indictment but wasn't NAMED in that indictment. That doesn't mean the DOJ cannot come back at a later point and charge her along with the other unindicted co-defendents.
Powell's plea deal requires her to testify truthfully on all matters in any upcoming court appearance. That statement is not qualified and restricted to only the Georgia racketeering case or restricted only to Georgia state court appearances. It says ANY matter in ANY court appearance. Failure to tell the full truth could result in her plea deal being tossed and criminal charges re-instated and tried.
When a defendant files a guilty plea involving a deal with the prosecution, the judge in the case forces the defendant to answer a series of simple, explicit questions:
1) are you on any medications that could alter your ability to understand information / communication?
2) do you the defendant believe the facts in evidence are sufficient proof of your guilt?
3) do the documents submitted here for this deal reflect the complete understanding between you and the prosecutor?
4) are there any other agreements you have made that have any impact on your decision to file this plea?
The goal of these questions is to avoid later appeals that the defendant didn't understand the charges, didn't understand the evidence, didn't in fact mean to say they are guilty of the accused crime(s) and fully understands the impact of their plea.
That last question is the key point of interest with Powell. In her answers today agreeing to her plea deal, she told the judge there are NO OTHER AGREEMENTS in place that she has made with any party that affected her interest in agreeing to this plea deal.
With most cases, a defense attorney working for a client straddling state AND federal charges for the same set of acts / facts would normally want to have a deal in place with prosecutors at both levels, otherwise anything said (in this case) in state court admitting their guilt could be used against them in federal court. In theory, if she and her attorney answered the #4 question above truthfully today, she has no deal in place with Jack Smith. In theory, that means she is now exposed to nearly unlimited legal peril at the federal level. Maybe not immediately -- Jack Smith left those parties un-indicted for a reason, likely because he didn't want the primary case to get too unweildy with too many defendants. But Smith can come back later at any time within the statute of limitations and go after those other uninicted co-conspirators.
From the filing of this indictment, it has not been clear whether Powell and Chesebro had decided on their speedy trial strategy because they thought they could bum-rush a prosecutor who in fact wasn't ready for a trial OR if they recognized how weak their case was and could not afford a 6-12 month wait with lawyers burning up dollars they cannot afford.
From today's news, the quality of Powell's counsel seems doubtful. While she did avoid prison time in what should have been a pretty simple case, it isn't clear yet what the full price she paid might have been. She may not know until Jack Smith is done with the entire case.
WTH
