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, understan

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).