3 ms·
> Then why'd he accept a plea deal for life? Represented by a public defender. That doesn't seem very likely. Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty so
by tzs 3y ago
> Then why'd he accept a plea deal for life? Represented by a public defender.
That doesn't seem very likely. Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty so life would be the worst outcome he would get if he went to trial and lost.
> That's a striking resource asymmetry: million-dollar national lab work for the prosecution, 30 minutes of paper-skimming for the defense.
Public defenders spend considerably more time and effort than 30 minutes of paper-skimming when the charge is multiple murders.
- perihelions 3y ago- "Prosecutors were not seeking the death penalty so life would be the worst outcome he would get if he went to trial and lost." Right: he accepted a plea for the same maximum penalty the prosecutors would have sought at trial. That's not strategic.
- TheCleric 3y agoOnly if you assume information symmetry. If they told him (untruthfully) that they were going to seek the death penalty, but if he pleads then they’ll take the death penalty off the table, it may seem strategic.