Analysis Of Defendant Attributes In Plea Bargaining By Douglas Maynard

More than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated pleas, also known as, plea bargaining. Plea bargains are used every day at both the federal and state court level. They certainly have their “proponents” as well as their “opponents”. A plea bargain basically is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. That agreement is usually in the form of a defendant pleading guilty to a “lesser” crime with a reduced sentence in return for the prosecuting authority not having to expend the time, energy, expense and manpower in seeking a conviction in a trial of a more serious charge. An evaluation of the evidence against the defendant is usually a significant factor by the prosecutor in determining whether or not a plea bargain should be offered. If the prosecutor’s case is strong, the chances of a plea bargain being offered to the defendant are lessened. While at the same time, if the prosecutor feels that his evidence is on the weaker side, the probability of a plea bargain being offered is enhanced.

A plea bargain is a negotiation between the defendant and their attorney on one side, and the crown prosecutor on the other side. A plea bargain may give the defendant a lightened sentence, in exchange for either confessing to some crimes, or giving information that is related to the offence, for example, the location of stolen goods or the names and locations of other participants, as well as their part in the offence.

Calling Your Bluff: How Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Adapt Plea Bargaining Strategies to Increased Formalization

Plea bargaining is when the defendant and prosecutor negotiate an agreement between each other where the defendant pleas guilty to reduced charges.

Our criminal justice system has over time implemented and changed the means of sentencing and punishment for crimes. In the United States plea deals are accountable for 90% of criminal cases. A plea deal is an agreement between prosecutor and defendant in whom the defendant accepts a guilty plea to a charge and in return receives some type of concession from the prosecution. As we have moved forward in the judicial system and now have the ability to look back on previous cases, plea deals have become more controversial. The majority of awareness in this area has been used to look deeper into false confessions, grazing right over the fact that false confessions are a large part plea deals. A controversy arose when many refused to believe that situational factors during interrogations and dispositional factors inherent to the suspects could result in false confessions. (Redlich, 2010)

The plea bargaining process is no stranger to the justice system. The issue of plea bargaining has been subject to never-ending debate as to whether or not this system is still viable. Some believe that we should abolish this system of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is criticized for failing to take into account the victims’ desires. Rampant is the belief that people are not being properly punished for their crime and, as such, leads to a diminished respect for the criminal justice process. Others believe that the plea bargaining system is necessary in order to prevent overwhelming case loads for the justice system and it also helps save court time and money by resolving cases early on in the criminal process. It can also help secure a conviction if it is unclear if there is enough evidence for the accused to be found guilty of his or her crime. Despite some of its limitations raised by critics, we should not go so far as to demand the abolishment of plea negotiations. The plea bargaining system is a necessary evil. While the system of plea bargaining is indispensable, it is important to note that the plea bargaining process in Canada is far from perfect. Thus, suggestions will be recommended for a reform of the process of plea bargaining. Directions for future research will be discussed as well.

In a Frontline Program- The Plea we watched in class there were interviews of people involved in three separate cases that had involved the plea bargain. In this video a man named Charles Gampero had gotten into a

In chapter 18 “The Case against Plea Bargaining” by Timothy Lynch, it discusses the use of plea barging in cases which involve defendants admitting guilt in exchange for a reward. According to Lynch, some of the benefits include being charged with a lesser offense or in other words a reduced sentence, a decrease in counts when a defendant is charged with numerous counts of crime, and a promise by the prosecutor to recommend to the judge that a soft sentence is forced. Another benefit is the modification in the charges filed against the defendant to be somewhat more acceptable.

But while this revelation complicates and adds relevance to Rakoff's topic, he also asks “What's wrong with that?” – a variation of “so what?” In answer to this question, he says that plea bargains are “secret negotiations” that “invite[] arbitrary results.” Both innocent and guilty defendants, in other words, are placed in the same pot, and the goal is to achieve the appearance of fairness, not the realization of it. Considering ninety-seven percent of federal convictions are the results of guilty pleas (Rakoff), that is a haunting injustice.

In Glenn Ford’s case, his state-provided lawyers had “never even stepped foot in the courtroom before…they never tried a case and [were] defending a capital case." One specialized in oil and gas law and the other had never appeared before a jury, making the pair woefully ill equipped for the most momentous occasion in the defendant’s life. Playing off of Mr. Ford’s fears and cowering behind the gravitas of the prosecution, they urged Mr. Ford to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. Little did Ford know that the outcome would be dire, unwittingly driving the final nail in his own coffin. Obviously, plea-bargaining brings about many advantages. In most cases, it minimizes the risk of longer sentences if the prosecution uncovers more damning evidence, as well as shortens trial lengths. This works particularly well for those that already know of their guilt, who can choose the lesser of two evils—the devil they know. Drawing fewer trials, bargaining supposedly carries the added benefit of minimizing backlogs and enabling more cases to be heard in a given period of time. Yet, many of the troubles of plea-bargaining go overlooked. Though some may be genuinely innocent, defendants often plead guilty to more lenient sentences rather than risk the possibility of harsher penalties from a trial's decision—made especially more tempting if they have a poor defense team. Furthermore, plead-bargaining essentially skates around rigorous methods of truth-seeking; thoroughness and impartiality play second fiddle to backdoor wheeling and dealing, making things more a matter of what’s convenient to the parties involved than finding

Plea bargain provides that flexibility necessary to make adjustments and produce substantive justice (Neubauer qtd. in McCoy 325).

Plea-bargains in criminal cases should not be used as much as they in today’s justice system because their drawbacks outweigh their benefits.

Plea-bargaining in the United States is considered an unregulated practice due to decisions the US Supreme Court made and essentially eliminated lower courts lawful right to judicial supervision (Brown, 2016). These decisions obligated judges to have little input in the plea bargaining process (Brown, 2016). “Those decisions rested primarily on two claims: separation of powers and the practical costs of regulating plea bargaining in busy criminal justice systems” (Brown, 2016, p. 1225).

By using Sanborns paper as a reference, it shows us that the concept of plea bargaining we use today has only been around for about 50 years. In these past 50 years, although still relatively new, plea bargaining has become such an incremental part in the court system. Within the last few years ir has especially picked up momentum. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics in 2003, scholars have drawn the conclusion that 90-95% of all trials were fixed by the process of plea bargaining (Devers, 2011). At that rate, it is not hard to imagine that eventually almost all of our court procedures will be carried out through this process. To put it into perspective, this means that 5% of all court cases actually go onto trial. Typically, plea bargaining is a relatively private process, but as always this is ever changing. Victims’ rights groups are starting to become recognized more and more, which leads to more input being given in the plea bargain process. How this affects the plea process is simple, more input means less flexible sentencing which can usually stall the negotiating process, prolonging an agreement between the two parties. The theory of plea bargaining is constantly shifting, with many viewers constantly trying to decrease the use of it.

It has been understood that many successful criminal prosecutions in the United States end not with jury trial, rather yet plea bargain. Plea bargains are agreements between prosecutor and defendant, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in order to receive a lesser offence or sentence. “The mode of plea-bargaining is most closely associated with high volume, low-stakes cases like misdemeanors and low grade felonies, as well as cases in which the prosecutor and defense lawyer have a good relationship and a long history of past dealings,”(O’Hear,2008). Throughout the following report I will be creating a scenario as a prosecutor proposing a plea offer alongside with a role of defense counsel and preparing a counteroffer