Incorrect. Proving unequal application of the law is a difficult case to start with since it is going to be hard to find any other case to directly compare it to. In other words you would need to point to another case where a drugged up crazy person threatened a bunch of people on a subway and got chocked out, ultimately dying, by a good Samaritan and the same prosecutors chose not to charge the Samaritan. On top of that you would also need to prove that this was the case where the prosecution erred. By that I mean even if you found a good parallel case you would need to prove that this one was prosecuted wrongly as opposed the other case not being prosecuted when it should have been. The prosecutors would put forth the claim that any parallel case that wasn't prosecuted was actually the unequal application. Simply put there are so many small variables from case to case and from prosecutor to prosecutor it is very hard to say that it was malicious prosecution. We can assume bias and politics all day long but proving it in court is not an easy case to make.
Yes Trump has been prosecuted under a statute that has never been used before but when you look at the facts of the case he did technically violate the statute. The problem with the hush money case is not in whether he did violate the law rather it was because it was so technical and stretching that it wouldn't be done if it weren't Trump.
A malicious prosecution involves filing a case without grounds or probable cause. The Penny case and the hush money case are not without probable cause so even if you could make the case that the law was not applied equally, that still does not amount to malicious prosecution. Imagine cop 1 gives warnings all day long then the next day cop 2 gives tickets all day long in the same area for the same speeds. You can argue unequal application of speeding law but thats not grounds for maliciousness.
I didn't ignore that Gonzales lied to police, I only stated that I thought he needed Gonzalez' testimony to prove his case. Having lied to police is not a major disqualifier as is lying under oath (perjury), legally speaking. Criminals lie to cops all the time but if they are a key witness they are still used.
i'm not going to pretend to defend or explain what Penny's lawyers stated. You have an opposing opinion (surprise) and feel like you have to defend it with definitions you copied from google results.
All I can tell you is the process should have resulted in nobody charged. Alvin Bragg has demonstrated political bias in exercising the powers of his office more than once. To me, this is one more example of a political prosecution -- it is even more obvious since a jury unanimously found him not guilty in spite of some believing him guilty of more serious charges.
Whereas most google lawyers post a definition of malicious prosecution to include having the charges dismissed, this is the real standard:
The Supreme Court, on April 4, 2022, held in a 6-3 opinion in Thompson v. Clark
(2022) 142 S.Ct. 1332, that a plaintiff who brings a Fourth Amendment claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) for malicious prosecution need only show the
underlying criminal prosecution ended without a conviction to demonstrate the
favorable termination element of the claim.
So, that eliminates the "charges dismissed" hurdle. And it doesn't take a genius to show the video, not medical evidence, caused the ME to change the cause of death to a homicide by asphyxiation. Video evidence can be misinterpreted due to lighting, perception, angle of viewpoint, etc. In the Rittenhouse case, there was a lot of video evidence. Both the prosecution and defense used the same video evidence to argue both sides of the case. The prosecution lost, because they jury didn't buy their conclusions based on the video and witness testimony.
i hope they get NYC by the financial balls and squeeze. That place is a judicial s#!thole.