Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: james on Sep 21st, 2015 @ 4:25am
And the emissions "cheat" in question is to reduce NOx emissions within the EPA required range...
Exactly. And consumers can't tell they're emitting too much NOx but they can certainly tell how much fuel the car is using, so if the tradeoff was fuel efficiency vs. NOx emissions it's clear why they did it.
As an example, GM has been famous for their "forced shift" manuals that go from 1st to 4th gear under the exact loading conditions for the EPA test, thus improving fuel mileage and reducing some emissions as a result.
Those cars do that all the time, not just when it's being tested, and it isn't just "under the exact loading conditions for the EPA test", it's pretty much any light throttle acceleration. Naturally this means that if you want to enjoy driving your car, you'll open the throttle way up to avoid the lockout, thus resulting in worse fuel consumption and emissions than if the feature were absent.
Wrong, their has to be a prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed.
You're drawing a distinction between "a crime was committed" and "there is prima facie evidence that a crime was committed"? On a non-lawyer oriented blog, there's not much difference between those.
According to Wikipedia, '[Brady] laid down the following conditions for a plea to be valid:
Defendant must be "fully aware of the direct consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made to him" Plea must not be "induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor's business (e. g. bribes)" Pleas entered would not become invalid later merely due to a wish to reconsider the judgment which led to them, or better information about the Defendant's or the State's case, or the legal position. Plea bargaining "is no more foolproof than full trials to the court or to the jury. Accordingly, we take great precautions against unsound results. [...] We would have serious doubts about this case if the encouragement of guilty pleas by offers of leniency substantially increased the likelihood that defendants, advised by competent counsel, would falsely condemn themselves. But our view is to the contrary and is based on our expectations that courts will satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel and that there is nothing to question the accuracy and reliability of the defendants' admissions". The ruling in Brady does not discuss "situation[s] where the prosecutor or judge, or both, deliberately employ their charging and sentencing powers to induce a particular defendant to tender a plea of guilty. In Brady's case there is no claim that the prosecutor threatened prosecution on a charge not justified by the evidence or that the trial judge threatened Brady with a harsher sentence if convicted after trial in order to induce him to plead guilty."'