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

Based on the charged presented to someone a plea bargain, no matter how unusual may sound appealing. For example, if an individual was stop for speeding one night and was later found to be driving under the influence they could be charged with an OUI. Lets say this is not this persons first OUI and due to this being a recurring offence they will be facing jail time and a loss of license. After the individual was arrested their vehicle was searched and a large amount of money was found in a bank sleeve. In this instance the prosecutor offers, no jail time, and suspension of the license for 30 days opposed to year in exchange for the cash found in the vehicle. This would be an example of ad hoc plea-bargaining. It’s unethical perhaps for the prosecutor to suggest the defendant surrender his money to the state to receive a lighter sentence, however if the defendant does not with to do jail time and not having a license for an extender period of time could be devastating to them. Ad hoc plea-bargaining can also be exchanged in the other direction, from the defendant to the

6). This would leave the court system plenty behind and nearly almost impossible to attend to each case. Plea bargaining is essential to court cases and must be done (Emerick), stated attorney Samuel Buccero. “The court is not set up to have multiple trials. The dockets are set up to be done in less than an hour” (Emerick), Buccero said.

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

Without out plea bargaining, courts and jail would be overcrowded, unorganized and forced to shut down. Moreover, people willing to accept their crimes and take punishment are rewarded with lesser sentences, saving everyone’s time, while still serving

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.

Plea bargaining has been around since the early 1800’s and is a process where the attorney for the defendant negotiates a plea with the prosecuting attorney. This process which was simple in the beginning has changed dramatically over the years. Prosecutors have made it seem they have evidence for serious crimes and get people to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Many people will accept a plea bargain out of fear of what will happen at trial. Everyday people who otherwise would have been acquitted due to lack of evidence or they are really innocent will plead guilty to a lesser charge. It wasn’t until 1970 with the United States Supreme Court case of Brady v. United States that the constitutionality of plea bargaining was established. Plea bargaining should be regulated so as not to harm the legal system any more than it has. Plea bargaining takes away a person’s right to be tried by a jury of their peers.

My favorite article from section III is article 11 Adapting to Plea Bargaining: Prosecutors by Milton Heumann. The reason I like this article the best is because it talks about and shows the perspectives of new prosecutors about plea agreements. That the aspect of plea bargaining are quite similar to that of new prosecutors and defense attorneys. I like how the author included illustrations of questions from an older prosecutor to the answers to a newly appointed prosecutor. I believe what Heumann tried to make valid in this article is that new prosecutors take into account that plea bargaining is a worthwhile service. I think the author did a lot of assuming in this article rather that teaching the material to his readers. Advantages to

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

Plea bargaining is any agreement is an agreement between the prosecutor and defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in exchange for a concession from the prosecutor. There are many benefits to the defendant and justice system which can vary to relieving the defendant of a major conviction and benefit them based on the final decision, while also avoiding the trial set by the courts. The justice system benefits from the plea bargain because the prosecutor is able to convict the defendant of committing the the crime towards society and win the case without having to proceed to trial. On the other hand plea bargaining is controversial since it skips through the entire investigative process and is considered to be an easy way out of trial since the conviction can become less than what is actually supposed to be the actual time for the commited crime. For example a murder can convicted a person up to life in prison, and a plea bargain can reduce the time in prison for the defendant by 10 years, which is unfair since now the defendant gets to spend less time in prison for such a horrific crime.

There is not only one way to think about plea bargaining. From the law enforcement side, it is the way to go. But on the civil side, I do see where there could be a misunderstanding. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. A prosecutor told two researchers working under a National Institute of Mental Health grant "I've seen some people plead guilty to attempted possession of narcotics, and I think that is pretty hard to do" (Fine, 1987). Then she commented “What is the "spree" criminal to think when it is "bargain day" at the courthouse: four armed robberies for the price of one (Fine, 1987)? What is an impressionable young man to think when, after smashing up a stolen car, he is allowed to plead guilty to the reduced charge of "joy riding” (Fine, 1987). As one commentator has recently written, plea bargaining "often destroys the integrity of the criminal justice system by allowing defendants to appear to be convicted of crimes different from the ones they actually committed (Fine, 1987). I seem to still be somewhere right in the middle of all these discussions this

Plea bargaining can be described as the process where prosecuting and defense attorneys negotiate an agreement where both sides of the case compromise on an outcome. A legitimate concern of this process is that defendants who are unable to afford the best legal representation might be intimidated into accepting a plea bargain even when they are innocent. That would not be considered fair in any right. It must also be acknowledged, however, that a guilty verdict with a more negative outcome or more severe sentence may also be delivered by a jury trial for these same innocent defendants with poor representation.

Therefore, since 90% or more criminal cases in the United States are resolved through plea bargaining, the crime control model is most often utilized. However, alternatives exist, providing prosecutors take the time to utilize the alternatives. Moreover, posing the question, should the amalgam, the offenders, receive heterogeneous or homogeneous consideration? Should prosecutors make magnanimous decisions affecting the kismet of offenders, possibly creating more stable, productive lives for

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

Plea bargaining is when there is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant that typically involves the defendant's to pleading guilty in order to be able to receive a lesser offenses or sentences. When this agreement is being made it allows for the immediate resolution of cases where there is little disagreement, or the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. When a plea Bargain is taken place, it increases efficiency for the courts and able to reduce expense and time of the defendant.

Plea bargaining is a comment occurrence in many states within America. The vast majority of states decides criminal cases through plea bargaining. In fact a plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defense counsel, where the defendant agrees to enter in a plea of guilty in exchange for leniency. Statically 95% of all cases are decided through plea agreements while the remaining 5% of defendants proceed to trial. However, this is not the norm in other countries, though it is in America. Regardless, plea agreements existed for centuries especially in the colonies. However, the use waned after the process begin to be associated with alleged coercion or forced plea entries by innocent defendants. Yet, in the 20th century the process gained traction again, due to the influx of criminal cases staining the courts. The reemergence of plea