Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
In the United Kingdom, it is illegal for a prosecutor to "stack the charges" to intimidate a defendant into accepting a lesser plea deal, but in the United States, it is a common practice, especially if a defendant refuses to accept a plea deal that is offered by the prosecution. The Rittenhouse trial is a perfect example of that. Rittenhouse rejected the "plea deal" that was offered by the prosecution e.g. Rittenhouse refused to plead guilty, so the prosecution subsequently "stacked the charges" against Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then demanded a jury trial - and the jury found him not guilty on all counts. However, it is extremely stressful for a defendant to take all those "stacked charges" to trial, because it's possible that the defendant could be found guilty of trumped up prosecutorial charges. In the famous video that everyone saw, Rittenhouse collapsed under the stress of it all, after the jury announced he was not guilty on all prosecutorial counts.

If a prosecutor cannot make a case on the original charge/allegation, then it should be illegal in the U.S. for an American prosecutor to add "stacked charges" to force a defendant into accepting a prosecutorial "deal." Again, stacking the charges is a standard practice in the U.S. system.
An individual agrees to take a plea bargain, when their lawyer, along with the prosecutor, pressures them to take the plea, since the charges against them could result in them going to jail or prison, for much longer than they ordinarily would, if they do not take the offered plea deal. The defendant agrees and accepts the plea, to avoid harsher sentencing, even though they did not commit the enhanced criminal allegations by a prosecutor. Utilizing a just lawyer, who upholds the law, can significantly reduce the rate of wrongful convictions of innocent individuals. However, lawyers are too expensive for most people.