4 ms·

The United States Courts don't think that having a 50 year sentence over your head, and being offered a 5-10 year plea deal instead, is cajoling. When you take

The United States Courts don't think that having a 50 year sentence over your head, and being offered a 5-10 year plea deal instead, is cajoling. When you take a plea (with the judge knowing all of the above and that you were threatened with a 40 year 'trial tax' if you didn't take the plea) you literally have to swear in court no in answer to the judge asking "Has anyone forced, threatened, or coerced you in any way into pleading guilty?" even though it is the judge who will personally add 45 years to your sentence if you don't take the plea. This falls under the "voluntariness requirement" as part of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Rule 11(b)(2) requires that the court "address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement)." The threat of 40 years of your life (basically a death sentence, you will probably die in that time, many you know and love will die in that time, you will not be able to restart any sort of life if you don't die) because you chose to exercise your right to trial instead of pleading guilty is not considered a threat, coercion, or cajoling by the United State Federal Justice system. This voluntariness inquiry is a key part of what's known as the "Rule 11 colloquy" - the series of questions and statements that must occur between the judge and defendant before a guilty plea can be accepted. Plea deals/plea bargaining was not legal at the start of the United States and was actually considered unconstitutional. The practice wasn't officially recognized by the Supreme Court as legitimate until 1970 in Brady v. United States on the grounds that not EVERY plea is coercion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11 https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-trial-tax https://naacp.org/resources/eliminating-illegal-practice-tri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jackson

Spivak 2y ago
This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. Which I know makes the name kind of vestigial but it's at least more honest about the transaction. Both sides are negotiating based on the perceived time and monetary effort, and chance of conviction. Someone who is innocent may (unfortunately) find it their best course of action to take a plea deal and they shouldn't have to falsely admit their guilt to accept it. It's not perfect but it removes a lot of the coercive elements from the transaction.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  They are considered somewhat differently which is why some statutes/laws have a clause 'or plead guilty to'. I don't see how it removes in any way that the threat of imposition of the trial tax is a threat. If you can receive a 5 or 50 year sentence for the exact same crime, with the exact same circumstances other than taking a plea, the extra 45 years can not be considered anything but an explicit threat to take the plea. Or that pleas were considered unconstitutional at the founding of the US and only made legal in the 1960s. The government only allows pleas for businesses that include a non admission of guilt. Admission of guilt is required as part of the Federal plea process, otherwise defendants could retain too many appeal rights (when you admit guilt from that point on you must prove a much higher 'actual innocence' legal standard on appeal and none of the easier standards like tainted evidence, corrupt officials, improper procedures can be applied to your case).
  - noduerme 2y ago
    Sorry, come again? What is a "trial tax"? You mean if you opt to go to trial, plead not guilty, and you lose then they're threatening that the penalty could be more severe? Is that the "tax"? Maybe it's just me, but if I were falsely accused, I'd take a jury trial in a heartbeat over making a false confession. Just on principle alone. I understand why a guilty defendant might take a plea bargain, but it blows my mind that this works on some people who are innocent.
    - listenallyall 2y ago
      Prosecutors will argue exactly your point, that no innocent person would take a plea deal or confess to a crime they didn't do. But lots of research is demonstrating the opposite. Keep in mind that once police and prosecutors believe you probably are the one who committed the crime, they will usually stop investigating any alternate theories or people, and only focus on building their case against you - and sometimes, even withhold exonerating evidence. So if you do choose a trial, everything that is presented will be pointing at you and you alone, you can try to raise an alternate theory but nobody in authority will back you up. It's a very difficult spot to be in.

Spivak 2y ago

This nonsense is why I think plea deals need to have no admission of wrongdoing. Which I know makes the name kind of vestigial but it's at least more honest about the transaction. Both sides are negotiating based on the perceived time and monetary effort, and chance of conviction. Someone who is innocent may (unfortunately) find it their best course of action to take a plea deal and they shouldn't have to falsely admit their guilt to accept it. It's not perfect but it removes a lot of the coercive elements from the transaction.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
They are considered somewhat differently which is why some statutes/laws have a clause 'or plead guilty to'. I don't see how it removes in any way that the threat of imposition of the trial tax is a threat. If you can receive a 5 or 50 year sentence for the exact same crime, with the exact same circumstances other than taking a plea, the extra 45 years can not be considered anything but an explicit threat to take the plea. Or that pleas were considered unconstitutional at the founding of the US and only made legal in the 1960s. The government only allows pleas for businesses that include a non admission of guilt. Admission of guilt is required as part of the Federal plea process, otherwise defendants could retain too many appeal rights (when you admit guilt from that point on you must prove a much higher 'actual innocence' legal standard on appeal and none of the easier standards like tainted evidence, corrupt officials, improper procedures can be applied to your case).
- noduerme 2y ago
  Sorry, come again? What is a "trial tax"? You mean if you opt to go to trial, plead not guilty, and you lose then they're threatening that the penalty could be more severe? Is that the "tax"? Maybe it's just me, but if I were falsely accused, I'd take a jury trial in a heartbeat over making a false confession. Just on principle alone. I understand why a guilty defendant might take a plea bargain, but it blows my mind that this works on some people who are innocent.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    Prosecutors will argue exactly your point, that no innocent person would take a plea deal or confess to a crime they didn't do. But lots of research is demonstrating the opposite. Keep in mind that once police and prosecutors believe you probably are the one who committed the crime, they will usually stop investigating any alternate theories or people, and only focus on building their case against you - and sometimes, even withhold exonerating evidence. So if you do choose a trial, everything that is presented will be pointing at you and you alone, you can try to raise an alternate theory but nobody in authority will back you up. It's a very difficult spot to be in.