Prosecutors have been less successful...to culminate in non-jury trials

[GoodTaste]

Hale-Cusanelli was the fifth Capitol riot defendant to take his case to a jury trial. The Justice Department has secured convictions in all five cases.

Prosecutors have been less successful in the two cases to culminate in non-jury trials. Both of those trials were overseen by McFadden, who partially acquitted one defendant while fully acquitting another.

Source: Reuters

I understand "successful...to culminate" as "successful...to win the case". Am I on the right track?

 

[5jj]

No.

They have been less successful in the two cases that have ended up in non-jury trials.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/culminate

 

[GoodTaste]

No.

They have been less successful in the two cases that have ended up in non-jury trials.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/culminate

That is, their original goals were to 'end up in jury trials, yet it turned out to be ended in non-jury trials?

 

[5jj]

We don't know what their original goals were.

 

[SoothingDave]

The goals were to convict people.

 

[GoodTaste]

The goals were to convict people.

Then a jury was required.

 

[jutfrank]

That is, their original goals were to 'end up in jury trials, yet it turned out to be ended in non-jury trials?

I think you've misunderstood post #2. Replace to culminate with that culminated.

 

[GoodTaste]

I think you've misunderstood post #2. Replace to culminate with that culminated.

Sorry I don't understand you. According to the definition "If you say that an activity, process, or series of events culminates in or with a particular event, you mean that event happens at the end of it", it seems to me that your understanding of it and mine are the same.

 

[jutfrank]

Your question makes me think you've misunderstood the meaning of the infinitive verb form to culminate.

Yes, culminate means something like 'end a process'. The two cases mentioned culminated/ended in non-jury trials.

 

[SoothingDave]

Then a jury was required.

Not if the defendant waives that right and opts for a non-jury trial.

 

[GoodTaste]

Not if the defendant waives that right and opts for a non-jury trial.

Defendants appear to more likely be acquitted in non-jury trials than in jury ones (that is why the author disappointedly said "culminate in non-jury trials" - Do I get this wrong?)

Prosecutors have been less successful in the two cases to culminate in non-jury trials. Both of those trials were overseen by McFadden, who partially acquitted one defendant while fully acquitting another.

 

[SoothingDave]

"Culminate" just means "end." The prosecution ended in a non-jury trial.

There is no tone of disappointment. These are statements of fact. Whether one thinks acquittals are good or not depends on the individual case and one's understanding of facts and the law. People don't monolithically root for prosecutors to win every case.

Especially in politically-charged cases like these.

 

[jutfrank]

In fact, Reuters have a responsibility to remain politically neutral.

 

[GoodTaste]

In fact, Reuters have a responsibility to remain politically neutral.

I don't accurately understand you. Are you saying Reuters is not neutral in this news article?

 

[jutfrank]

That's not what I meant, no. I meant they should at least appear to present the news objectively.