Talk:Selective prosecution
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]I am making inquiries as to the application of this term snd how it relates to employment. A comcerted effort on the behalf of the employer to accuse the employee of various infractions (as a result of supervisor issues). H.R. has been involved and a seemingly negative view of the employee is being compiled and documented without merit. It at least crreates a negative work environ where constant friction and fear of firing becomes real. Please assist a layman in any way possible. (Aqamani 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
request for information
[edit]Does anyone know if there have been any successful defense motions for dismissal of charges using selective prosecution as an argument for a case where the prosecution claims that the defendant is guilty because communications by him/her led to harm coming to the victim on the grounds that judges routinely cause the same type of information to be known through forced testimony with the same outcome and are not prosecuted? Ignorantone 13:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What would be needed to prove selective prosecution
[edit]For example would Pitchess motion be per-requisite to Murgia motion in order to get supporting evidence. Or could use one use proof that laws were amended and enforced although not neccessarily ex post facto law that would prove conspiracy as defined in CA Penal Code 182.
Also would destruction of evidence CA PENAL CODE 135 help in a Murgia motion attempt to prove selective prosecution?
Or would the term press charges be applicable if say the alledged victim does not press charges but the People who are falsely represented by 1 District Attorney presses charges. I see grounds for Demurrer here but effectively everyone is punished until proven innocent unless legali[z/s]ed ransom is paid by a 3rd party in the form of bail
And would the denial of bail and habeas corpus explicitly CA PENAL CODE 1490 habeas corpus for want of bail be acceptable in proving a selective prosecution
Examples related to case SCD223160 which booked under false surname and ignored CA PENAL 989 to correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7001:200:F04B:D77B:7175:DD3 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)