4 ms·

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overchar

Approximately 97% of indicted federal defendants plead guilty before trial because of three aspects of our system: 1) US Attorneys routinely routinely overcharge defendants to an almost absurd degree; 2) The most commonly used federal statutes, such as the Wire Fraud statute, are so broadly written that people with no criminal intent could reasonably be found guilty; and 3) The maximum sentences for convictions under these broad statutes are so absurdly high that no one in their right mind would dare risk a trial. These factors, combined with often merciless prosecutors, add up to a recipe for a potential disaster such as the one we have seen here. The system is very much geared to send to prison anyone that is charged with a crime, based on the system's trust in the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Unfortunately, many prosecutors abuse their discretion, and there is no way to inject uniform sanity into our system as it currently exists. Sadly, the prosecutor in this case likely won't even offer as much as an apology to Aaron's family, as most of them seem to feel justified in their behavior.

dmix 14y ago
Wow, do you have a source for the 94%?
agwa 14y ago
It's actually 97%, at least as of 2010: http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_S... Unfortunately that's down at the moment but you can use the Google Cache: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESilXv1aaDbX21Km_l4NgARe-6wI_aYmpDvcY9OMNMrayeLIJg-01o2tWEp1GeoYRgZ2pMXg7LkK5OQyI0q4ZDbArNevFiRd-nlp1q7MgMw-LO2C4LwopppI9RyzcLD9sopM3yeB&sig=AHIEtbR4psMUugvn_bV47GYdgak35_JkoQ https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:...
- downandout 14y ago
  Corrected, thanks. The 94% figure was from 2001 I believe. Apparently it's gone up.
  - agwa 14y ago
    Up indeed. It was "only" 84% in 1990. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_S... and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
anon3456 14y ago
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/appendices/D04Sep11.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness... No, it actually isn't. You have to look at convictions, acquittals, and dismissals to form an accurate assessment of the outcome of criminal prosecutions. When you factor in dismissals, the conviction rate, whether by a plea of guilty or no contest, or as a result of a trial, drops to 90-91%.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.
  - agwa 14y ago
    Right - dismissals of some counts often happen as part of a guilty plea. Still, wording is important: both I and the parent poster should have said 97% was the percentage of convictions which resulted from pleas, not the percentage of indicted defendants which plead guilty. I think taking percentage of convictions is the correct metric to use - given the ideals of innocent until proven guilty and the right to trial, you would hope that most convictions were the result of a trial rather than a vanishingly small (and getting smaller) 3%. It's also quite telling that even with statistics haggling, the anonymous poster still conceded a whopping 90%.
  - anon3456 14y ago
    What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous. I actually don't think a conviction rate of 9 out of 10 is too high; rather, too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe. But I don't think the actual trial and pretrial systems are irredeemably bad, as many of the posts here are suggesting.
jrs235 14y ago
What do you think about jury nullification? If more people knew about it, do you think "we the people" could reign in out of touch congress critters that write these laws (don't repeal or change them) and the over zealous executive branch (prosecutors and police) that attempt to rack up and level up charges.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- fatbird 14y ago
  The most prominent and continuous use of jury nullification occurred in the American South in the 20th century to nullify murder charges against those who had lynched black people or killed them by burning down their homes and churches. Didn't change the law in the direction they wanted, and didn't achieve justice either.
  - jrs235 14y ago
    I understand that. Isn't that why the Federal government came up with federal "civil right violation" laws to combat this to remove the jury of peers from the immediate locale [of racist jurors]? Also, one "short coming" of jury nullification is that it doesn't actually nullify the law, just the outcome of individual trials which, yes, can be abused as it was in the South. The precedent it can create, if enough juries nullify similar trials, is reducing over zealous prosecution and prosecutors. So, when a true RICO case comes up the law can appropriately be used. But when RICO is used in a case just to trump up charges, prosecutors will be less apt to pursue if its going to hurt their record of convictions and careers.
nekojima 14y ago
This is almost as good as Japan's very controversial 99%+ conviction rate, which is widely seen as abusive, with a high rate of innocent people forced to confess, for varied reasons. This is a decades old paper, but still quite relevant for the reasons why the conviction rate is so high in Japan. http://www.rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen-01.JLS.jpncon.pdf http://www.rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen-01.JLS.jpncon.pdf
ooorion 14y ago
What would happen if the 97% of cases that don't go to trial actually were to go to trial? It would seem that the prosecutors wouldn't have the resources to try everyone and would be forced to reduce or drop charges entirely. Not sure if this would be possible, but by coordinating this tactic among all federal defendants could discourage prosecutors from tacking on unnecessary charges.

dmix 14y ago

Wow, do you have a source for the 94%?

agwa 14y ago

It's actually 97%, at least as of 2010: http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_S... Unfortunately that's down at the moment but you can use the Google Cache: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESilXv1aaDbX21Km_l4NgARe-6wI_aYmpDvcY9OMNMrayeLIJg-01o2tWEp1GeoYRgZ2pMXg7LkK5OQyI0q4ZDbArNevFiRd-nlp1q7MgMw-LO2C4LwopppI9RyzcLD9sopM3yeB&sig=AHIEtbR4psMUugvn_bV47GYdgak35_JkoQ https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCmq1ybmBqAJ:...

downandout 14y ago
Corrected, thanks. The 94% figure was from 2001 I believe. Apparently it's gone up.
- agwa 14y ago
  Up indeed. It was "only" 84% in 1990. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_S... and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

anon3456 14y ago

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/appendices/D04Sep11.pdf http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness... No, it actually isn't. You have to look at convictions, acquittals, and dismissals to form an accurate assessment of the outcome of criminal prosecutions. When you factor in dismissals, the conviction rate, whether by a plea of guilty or no contest, or as a result of a trial, drops to 90-91%.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.
- agwa 14y ago
  Right - dismissals of some counts often happen as part of a guilty plea. Still, wording is important: both I and the parent poster should have said 97% was the percentage of convictions which resulted from pleas, not the percentage of indicted defendants which plead guilty. I think taking percentage of convictions is the correct metric to use - given the ideals of innocent until proven guilty and the right to trial, you would hope that most convictions were the result of a trial rather than a vanishingly small (and getting smaller) 3%. It's also quite telling that even with statistics haggling, the anonymous poster still conceded a whopping 90%.
- anon3456 14y ago
  What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous. I actually don't think a conviction rate of 9 out of 10 is too high; rather, too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe. But I don't think the actual trial and pretrial systems are irredeemably bad, as many of the posts here are suggesting.

jrs235 14y ago

What do you think about jury nullification? If more people knew about it, do you think "we the people" could reign in out of touch congress critters that write these laws (don't repeal or change them) and the over zealous executive branch (prosecutors and police) that attempt to rack up and level up charges.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
fatbird 14y ago
The most prominent and continuous use of jury nullification occurred in the American South in the 20th century to nullify murder charges against those who had lynched black people or killed them by burning down their homes and churches. Didn't change the law in the direction they wanted, and didn't achieve justice either.
- jrs235 14y ago
  I understand that. Isn't that why the Federal government came up with federal "civil right violation" laws to combat this to remove the jury of peers from the immediate locale [of racist jurors]? Also, one "short coming" of jury nullification is that it doesn't actually nullify the law, just the outcome of individual trials which, yes, can be abused as it was in the South. The precedent it can create, if enough juries nullify similar trials, is reducing over zealous prosecution and prosecutors. So, when a true RICO case comes up the law can appropriately be used. But when RICO is used in a case just to trump up charges, prosecutors will be less apt to pursue if its going to hurt their record of convictions and careers.

nekojima 14y ago

This is almost as good as Japan's very controversial 99%+ conviction rate, which is widely seen as abusive, with a high rate of innocent people forced to confess, for varied reasons. This is a decades old paper, but still quite relevant for the reasons why the conviction rate is so high in Japan. http://www.rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen-01.JLS.jpncon.pdf http://www.rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen-01.JLS.jpncon.pdf

ooorion 14y ago

What would happen if the 97% of cases that don't go to trial actually were to go to trial? It would seem that the prosecutors wouldn't have the resources to try everyone and would be forced to reduce or drop charges entirely. Not sure if this would be possible, but by coordinating this tactic among all federal defendants could discourage prosecutors from tacking on unnecessary charges.