{"id":"qac554056734eaca3fb79","batch_id":"batch-000067","seq":78,"speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-01-05T16:31:23.193Z","text":"检察官不当 也可以不得再起诉 叫做with prejudice","edited":false,"reply_to":"q7bba7e9db07fd820b7f8","reply_status":"available","has_attachment":false,"url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qac554056734eaca3fb79","reply_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7bba7e9db07fd820b7f8","reply_label":"查看被回复的发言（跨批次）","batch_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000067","batch_canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/batches/batch-000067","notice":"围绕郭文贵案的社区讨论与观点交锋。发言仅代表讨论者观点，不等同于法院认定。","content_type":"discussion_message","canonical_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qac554056734eaca3fb79","markdown_url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qac554056734eaca3fb79/markdown","json_url":"https://mubeitech.com/api/discussion-messages/qac554056734eaca3fb79","surrounding_messages":[{"id":"q7bba7e9db07fd820b7f8","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-01-05T12:17:40.122Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7bba7e9db07fd820b7f8"},{"id":"q338285aa017546d5ec8a","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-01-05T12:20:03.678Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q338285aa017546d5ec8a"},{"id":"q1288f4d0d39c2c8799d1","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-01-05T12:22:20.513Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q1288f4d0d39c2c8799d1"},{"id":"qe94cfb5d806fd41e4f27","speaker":"kir***","date":"2026-01-05T16:31:47.926Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qe94cfb5d806fd41e4f27"},{"id":"qf8a7ec4011883a806bc6","speaker":"zha***","date":"2026-01-05T16:53:54.031Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/qf8a7ec4011883a806bc6"},{"id":"q2e5293752c0e5d03a773","speaker":"zha***","date":"2026-01-05T16:54:19.321Z","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q2e5293752c0e5d03a773"}],"parent_message":{"id":"q7bba7e9db07fd820b7f8","speaker":"reb***","date":"2026-01-05T12:17:40.122Z","text":"A. 法律定义的不断收窄\n​近年来，美国最高法院多次介入联邦检察官对“诈骗罪”的过度扩大解释。许多被陪审团定罪的诈骗案，最终在最高法院被彻底撤销。\n* **Ciminelli v. United States (2023):** 最高法院一致推翻了被告的电汇诈骗定罪，裁定“剥夺他人控制其资产的权利”不属于联邦诈骗法保护的“财产”利益。\n* **Percoco v. United States (2023):** 撤销了关于“诚信服务诈骗”（Honest Services Fraud）的定罪。\n* **McDonnell v. United States (2016):** 前弗吉尼亚州州长的受贿与诈骗定罪被一致推翻，因为最高法院收窄了“官方行为”的定义。\n* **Kelly v. United States (2020):** 即著名的“桥梁门”事件，最高法院裁定被告虽然行为不当，但并没有构成联邦法律意义上的“骗取金钱或财产”。\n注意： 诈骗罪的定罪一旦被推翻，有时是因为“法律上不构成犯罪”（法律错误），这会导致被告被直接释放且不得重审；而如果是“程序错误”（如证据搜集违宪），检察官往往可以选择重审。\n被告最可能的翻案判词应该就是：法律上不构成犯罪”（法律错误），这会导致被告被直接释放。","url":"https://mubeitech.com/discussions/messages/q7bba7e9db07fd820b7f8"}}