As has been widely reported, several people have been arrested on suspicion of vandalising the reflecting pool by stripping the American Flag Blue paint from the bottom, including the former Olympic athlete David Hearn, who is to appear in the DC superior court on July 9.
Can someone please explain the US charging structure? Here in the UK, the police, after arresting and interviewing the suspect on suspicion (criminal damage, in this case) send a tape of the interview, the arresting and interviewing officers' statements and any other evidence in the case to the prosecuting agency (Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales or the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, who decide whether or not this evidence will support a charge, or if they need more information.
The CPS would ask for a court date after deciding they've got a case, not before, but in this case they seem to have gone ahead and filed a case with the DC superior court anyway.
What's going on here? On the face of it, this case isn't going to go anywhere, since unless the prosecution think they can make the jury sure that they saw the defendants actually taking steps to strip the paint off the bottom of the pool, as opposed to simply touching it, or removing fragments that had already detached and were floating in the water, it's a no-hoper.
Judges over here don't take kindly to having their and the court's time wasted with obviously defective prosecutions, and I'd be astonished if the evidence is such that there's even the slimmest chance of a conviction in this case.
www.ms.now
