16 ms·

>Plea agreements and their relationship to public defender's workload are another massive problem. Whether a case is criminal or civil more than 9 out of 10 ti

>Plea agreements and their relationship to public defender's workload are another massive problem. Whether a case is criminal or civil more than 9 out of 10 times a case will not go to trial. This is not necessarily indicative of any problem in either criminal or civil...in fact in most contexts it makes a lot of sense. For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Further, your statement "no innocent person would ever plead guilty", also inaccurately depicts a system where there is only two options guilty/not guilty, over looking a withholding of adjudication which is going to be applicable in the majority of misdemeanor cases and even some felonies. On the other hand if the State has a slam dunk case against my Client, it again makes no sense to go to trial and expose my Client to the maximum sentence when I can work out a plea at the minimums (or close to) under the law, this serves the interest of my Client as much as society (saving tax payer dollars on unnecessary trials, think arbitration/mediation in the civil context). Only in those cases where the plea offer is equal to the maximums under the law, or where the Gov has a shitty case but the facts are so egregious the Gov would rather take it to trial and lose than give a minimal plea does it make sense to go to trial. Unfortunately the World is simply comprised of haves and have-nots, where the poor (as you call them) get the short end of the stick...certainly this is true in the justice system as you note, but it is no more true in law than anywhere else (medical care, transportation, education, employment, ect...). Only the potential Gov abuses in the justice system have higher consequences, and that in part is why in 1963 SCOTUS ruled defendants have a Constitutional right to a lawyer who otherwise could not afford one(establishing the first PD office). Talk about scary...we have a Constitutional right to a criminal lawyer, but not to see a Dr. if we are sick.

nitrogen 11y ago
For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Isn't this (plea to lesser charge) a part of the problem the parent post was describing, that the sheer might and vindictiveness of the criminal justice system intimidates innocent (or even guilty) defendants into pleading guilty? If justice would be served by a lesser charge or a lesser sentence, how is it fair to increase the charge or increase the sentence because the defendant wants to exercise their constitutional right to a trial?
- will_brown 11y ago
  I see how it may appear vindictive that I have a offer (plea) at the minimums, but if I go to trial and lose the Gov will seek the maximums. However, understand if there is a trial and conviction, they are not necessarily seeking the maximums to be vindictive because maximums is what they may have wanted all along, and only offered minimums in a plea just in case they lost the trial, but they never really wanted to give the minimums. So it is not punishment for exercising your constitutional right as much as securing what they worked to achieve and what they wanted all along whereas they were willing to compromise. The same thing happens in civil with settlements, the suit may seek $10M, they are willing to settle for $5M, but if you go to trial and win you are going after the full amount you original sought even though at one point you would have taken half, that is not vindictive. >intimidates innocent (or even guilty) defendants into pleading guilty? Again this is a major misconception, in most instances of misdemeanors and even in some felonies there may not be a guilty plea, there will be a no contest plea ("I am not saying I did it, I am not saying I didn't do it, I am closing the case in my best interest") and in exchange the Gov will recommend a withholding of adjudication (This is not a finding of guilt, but an acknowledgement by the Court the defendant closed their case in their own best interest...almost a middle ground between guilty and not guilty).
mikeash 11y ago
You say that taking a plea serves the interest of both your client and society. You're right for each individual case, but the net effect is that innocent people are going to prison without even getting a trial. People should be allowed to plead guilty if they're certain that they'll be found guilty in court, and don't want to go through with the hassle. But I don't think they should in any way be rewarded for it with a lighter sentence, because that situation is indistinguishable from punishing people who insist on a trial. Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a trial if they want one, and they should never be subject to additional punishment for insisting that they get it. As it stands, insisting on a trial when you're guilty is de facto a crime punishable by potentially years in prison. This is not strictly a rich versus poor thing, either. Even a person who can afford an excellent lawyer can be potentially faced with the choice of a certain lesser prison term or a trial and an uncertain greater prison term.
- will_brown 11y ago
  >Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a trial if they want one, and they should never be subject to additional punishment for insisting that they get it I explained this to Nitrogen in this thread. Everyone is looking at this in a vacuum and thinking, "if the Gov offered a lesser sentence with a plea, but sought higher sentencing after a conviction at trial, then they are being vindictive." But they are not being vindictive, because that's what they wanted and may have been appropriate all along. Alternatively, a plea would not exist if the Prosecutor said the plea is "x", but you can go to trial and get a free bite at the apple and if you lose I promise to only seek "x", because everyone would go to trial. The real negative of a system like that would be maximums across the board which would neither serve society or most defendants.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It has nothing to do with whether the government is vindictive. Their motivations don't matter in the least. All I'm doing is looking at what the defendants are offered and observing that they are effectively being punished for exercising their right to a trial. It doesn't matter whether that's being done on purpose or whether it's just an unfortunate outcome of completely reasonable motivations. Why would the alternative be maximums across the board? Doesn't the judge still get discretion in sentencing after a trial?
lukev 11y ago
You said the phrase "risk a conviction" a couple times, in favor of plea bargains. That is precisely the problem. If I am wrongfully charged with a crime, and my best option is a plea bargain, then it is effectively irrelevant whether I was innocent or not - I am screwed the moment I am charged. It's removing the "justice" part of the justice system.
- will_brown 11y ago
  I never said they were wrongfully charged. Just because the Gov has a shitty case does not mean: 1.) the defendant is innocent, or 2.) Gov can not get a conviction at trial.
vidarh 11y ago
> On the other hand if the State has a slam dunk case against my Client, it again makes no sense to go to trial and expose my Client to the maximum sentence when I can work out a plea at the minimums This is exactly the kind of things that a lot of people find incredibly odious about the US justice system. If the state has a slam dunk case against your client that justifies the maximum sentence, then the state should seek that. If the state does not have a case that justifies the maximum sentence, then the maximum sentence shouldn't - and in most countries wouldn't be - on the table in the first place. That this is even possible gives US prosecutors strong incentives to dangle the threat of high sentences in front of your clients whether or not they are justified in the interest of pushing your clients not to go to trial. Especially when they face defendants with weaker representation. To me, this does not serve justice at all - it serves to create further injustices.
- will_brown 11y ago
  >If the state has a slam dunk case against your client that justifies the maximum sentence Having a slam dunk case in no way justifies the maximums. In many instances the Gov has a slam dunk case they still offer the minimums, because that is what the facts justify. Whether or not the Prosecutor dangles the maximums to get you to plea to less, that has no bearing if the facts justify the offer, you can always open plea to the Court and cut the prosecutor out of the equation. There are other safe-guards.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    > Having a slam dunk case in no way justifies the maximums. That wasn't what I implied, though I realise the wording was ambiguous. What I meant was "a slam dunk case where the facts justifies the maximum sentence". So both that the case is a slam dunk and that the maximum sentence is justified.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Why? Is justice served by re-victimizing a rape victim on the stand when you can get a plea for a lesser felony? Why go through the expense and risk of acquittal for a murder when you can get a manslaughter plea?

nitrogen 11y ago

For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Isn't this (plea to lesser charge) a part of the problem the parent post was describing, that the sheer might and vindictiveness of the criminal justice system intimidates innocent (or even guilty) defendants into pleading guilty? If justice would be served by a lesser charge or a lesser sentence, how is it fair to increase the charge or increase the sentence because the defendant wants to exercise their constitutional right to a trial?

will_brown 11y ago
I see how it may appear vindictive that I have a offer (plea) at the minimums, but if I go to trial and lose the Gov will seek the maximums. However, understand if there is a trial and conviction, they are not necessarily seeking the maximums to be vindictive because maximums is what they may have wanted all along, and only offered minimums in a plea just in case they lost the trial, but they never really wanted to give the minimums. So it is not punishment for exercising your constitutional right as much as securing what they worked to achieve and what they wanted all along whereas they were willing to compromise. The same thing happens in civil with settlements, the suit may seek $10M, they are willing to settle for $5M, but if you go to trial and win you are going after the full amount you original sought even though at one point you would have taken half, that is not vindictive. >intimidates innocent (or even guilty) defendants into pleading guilty? Again this is a major misconception, in most instances of misdemeanors and even in some felonies there may not be a guilty plea, there will be a no contest plea ("I am not saying I did it, I am not saying I didn't do it, I am closing the case in my best interest") and in exchange the Gov will recommend a withholding of adjudication (This is not a finding of guilt, but an acknowledgement by the Court the defendant closed their case in their own best interest...almost a middle ground between guilty and not guilty).

mikeash 11y ago

You say that taking a plea serves the interest of both your client and society. You're right for each individual case, but the net effect is that innocent people are going to prison without even getting a trial. People should be allowed to plead guilty if they're certain that they'll be found guilty in court, and don't want to go through with the hassle. But I don't think they should in any way be rewarded for it with a lighter sentence, because that situation is indistinguishable from punishing people who insist on a trial. Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a trial if they want one, and they should never be subject to additional punishment for insisting that they get it. As it stands, insisting on a trial when you're guilty is de facto a crime punishable by potentially years in prison. This is not strictly a rich versus poor thing, either. Even a person who can afford an excellent lawyer can be potentially faced with the choice of a certain lesser prison term or a trial and an uncertain greater prison term.

will_brown 11y ago
>Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a trial if they want one, and they should never be subject to additional punishment for insisting that they get it I explained this to Nitrogen in this thread. Everyone is looking at this in a vacuum and thinking, "if the Gov offered a lesser sentence with a plea, but sought higher sentencing after a conviction at trial, then they are being vindictive." But they are not being vindictive, because that's what they wanted and may have been appropriate all along. Alternatively, a plea would not exist if the Prosecutor said the plea is "x", but you can go to trial and get a free bite at the apple and if you lose I promise to only seek "x", because everyone would go to trial. The real negative of a system like that would be maximums across the board which would neither serve society or most defendants.
- mikeash 11y ago
  It has nothing to do with whether the government is vindictive. Their motivations don't matter in the least. All I'm doing is looking at what the defendants are offered and observing that they are effectively being punished for exercising their right to a trial. It doesn't matter whether that's being done on purpose or whether it's just an unfortunate outcome of completely reasonable motivations. Why would the alternative be maximums across the board? Doesn't the judge still get discretion in sentencing after a trial?

lukev 11y ago

You said the phrase "risk a conviction" a couple times, in favor of plea bargains. That is precisely the problem. If I am wrongfully charged with a crime, and my best option is a plea bargain, then it is effectively irrelevant whether I was innocent or not - I am screwed the moment I am charged. It's removing the "justice" part of the justice system.

will_brown 11y ago
I never said they were wrongfully charged. Just because the Gov has a shitty case does not mean: 1.) the defendant is innocent, or 2.) Gov can not get a conviction at trial.

vidarh 11y ago

> On the other hand if the State has a slam dunk case against my Client, it again makes no sense to go to trial and expose my Client to the maximum sentence when I can work out a plea at the minimums This is exactly the kind of things that a lot of people find incredibly odious about the US justice system. If the state has a slam dunk case against your client that justifies the maximum sentence, then the state should seek that. If the state does not have a case that justifies the maximum sentence, then the maximum sentence shouldn't - and in most countries wouldn't be - on the table in the first place. That this is even possible gives US prosecutors strong incentives to dangle the threat of high sentences in front of your clients whether or not they are justified in the interest of pushing your clients not to go to trial. Especially when they face defendants with weaker representation. To me, this does not serve justice at all - it serves to create further injustices.

will_brown 11y ago
>If the state has a slam dunk case against your client that justifies the maximum sentence Having a slam dunk case in no way justifies the maximums. In many instances the Gov has a slam dunk case they still offer the minimums, because that is what the facts justify. Whether or not the Prosecutor dangles the maximums to get you to plea to less, that has no bearing if the facts justify the offer, you can always open plea to the Court and cut the prosecutor out of the equation. There are other safe-guards.
- vidarh 11y ago
  > Having a slam dunk case in no way justifies the maximums. That wasn't what I implied, though I realise the wording was ambiguous. What I meant was "a slam dunk case where the facts justifies the maximum sentence". So both that the case is a slam dunk and that the maximum sentence is justified.
Spooky23 11y ago
Why? Is justice served by re-victimizing a rape victim on the stand when you can get a plea for a lesser felony? Why go through the expense and risk of acquittal for a murder when you can get a manslaughter plea?