"... Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John T. Feeney found good cause Tuesday — “due to the facts of the case” — to grant a motion that finds (Carol Ann) Yunque “factually innocent” of the charges she was acquitted of following a jury trial in January.
In addition, Feeney found good cause for the “sealing and ultimate destruction of the records in (the) Yunque case.”...: Yunque trial records to be 'destroyed'
It is a rare thing for a prosecutor to say that a defendant is INNOCENT of all charges, as Roy Cooper did in the Duke Lacrosse case. But those cases were stopped before they went to trial
It is also a rare thing for a motion for FACTUAL INNOCENCE to be applied for and even more rare than that for it to be granted after a full trial.
But that is what just happened in the Yunque case.
This can only happen if the judge finds that there was NO EVIDENCE worthy of going to trial. According to one of my anons "This means there was no factual basis to have charged her to begin with and not that there was not enough evidence to get the conviction."
It means the District Attorney's Office abused it's prosecutorial discretion and brought a case to trial that never should have been pursued.
Since it also means, apparently, that Yunque can sue, we'll have to put this one on the list of cases to watch. After the fact.
Question is, though - who will be sued, and does Paul Gallegos have absolute immunity?
(Thanks for the heads up, anon 2:17)
Cal Pen Code § 851.8