Hot answers tagged

23

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 11(b)(1)), a federal court may not accept a guilty plea without first addressing the defendant personally in open court. During this address, there are 15 things that the court must ensure that the defendant understands (if they apply in the case); one of these is the nature of every charge the defendant is ...


11

You are misinformed. In fact, approximately the reverse is true: in a typical jurisdiction in the United States today in excess of 95 percent of criminal cases that begin never reach a verdict. (The exact number varies a little, depending on which exact court system we're talking about.) Or never reach a trial at all, in fact. Or never even come close to ...


7

It is hard to measure accuracy in absolute terms because figuring out the truth is the problem that trials seek to solve in the first place. This is especially true of cases that go to trial. Cases that are almost sure to be resolved one way or the other by any tier of fact generally plea bargain (in criminal cases) or settle prior to trial (in civil cases)...


6

What is the process for having the plea withdrawn? Is it even possible at this point? Maybe, but YOU are not going to be able to do this on a pro se basis. It is clear from the way you word the questions you are still extremely emotionally invested in the whole scenario and want to make sure you get your pound of flesh at every turn. That is not going ...


5

The plea is entered before the trial. The concession of guilt happens during trial: the lawyer acknowledges that the defendant did the crime, but argues that it should be overlooked in some way. For example, Nixon dealt with a death-penalty case where the lawyer's strategy was to admit during the trial that the defendant had killed the victim, but to use ...


5

In short: Plea bargain benefit society as a whole. If a defendant exercises his/her constitutional right to a jury trial, the trial takes up a lot of time and preparation. A jury trial costs a significant amount of time and money. Additionally, judges have to set aside court time for the trial, when instead they could be doing other things. In most states ...


5

In the United States, it is rare for a defendant to plead guilty to an offense at their first appearance, in fact, there is no incentive to do so! Pleading guilty to the top count is equivalent to getting convicted in a jury trial, so why not make the government work for it and potentially be out on bail for a while? However, over time the defendants and ...


5

One pleads guilty to specific charges. If the government brings additional charges after a defendant pleads, the defendant's existing plea will not apply to the new charges.


4

I find it very easy to believe that a prosecutor would want to know the location of the body notwithstanding an existing conviction. The prosecutor represents the state an the state stands for, among other things, justice and the protection of its citizens. It is both just and good for the wellbeing of the loved ones of the victims that the body is returned ...


4

is it worth the money to have a lawyer and see if they could help me get this ticket off my record? No. It is not worth the money and, absent very unusual circumstances, a lawyer is unlikely to be meaningfully more successful than dealing directly with the prosecutor in the case. Your best, cost effective option is to contact the prosecutor's office to ...


3

Settlements and plea deals take place at any time, even after trial, because trials often mark just the beginning of a lengthy and expensive appeals process--which could potentially result in reversal and retrial. In this case, as part of the plea agreement, Reiser could not appeal his conviction or sentence. So that's one of the major reasons for the ...


3

An alternate interpretation of the verb "promise" is: "In my considered opinion, the prosecutors will seek a 25 year sentence, and again, in my considered opinion they will win!"


3

There is a clinical difference between insane and mentally ill. An insane person is "so irrational in their behavior, or so unable to control it - so unlike 'us'" that they are not criminally liable (from earlier in the chapter). Mental illness is "substantial disorder of thought or mood that substantially impairs judgement ..." (from near your link). ...


3

Ideally, the criminal justice system should: provide justice (fair and impartial) provide consistency (similar facts should receive similar sentences) be efficient (in time and money) provide fitting punishment and/or restitution (society needs its vengeance tempered by mercy) act as a deterrent (society needs protection) Some of these aims are in direct ...


3

As far as I understand, no. In Canada, everyone has the constitutional right to be free from any cruel or unusual punishment, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. If you're guilty of a crime, well then, you're guilty. You're either going to ...


3

Considering that the US legal system is more or less similar in practice to the English Courts, yes it is possible to plea bargian a deal. I'm linking to the wikipedia article on the matter with a specific link to the England and Wales for guidence. Normally, I'd explain, but I'm an American and the differences between Magistrate and Crown courts are big ...


3

The 1975 ban by the attorney general prohibited prosecutors from offering to reduce charges, dismiss counts, or request a particular sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. (Ad hoc exceptions were allowed, initially only by the AG, later by the head of each local office. For a while, there was also judicial bargaining). The AG's ban was on quid pro quo ...


2

As the other answers indicate you don't plead guilty (or not) to indictment (or criminal information). Instead for each specific charge in an indictment you're asked whether you plead guilty or not. So if federal prosecutors somehow added additional charges to an indictment, you wouldn't automatically be pleading guilty to those as well. However prosecutors ...


2

The main reason is that, if that criminal plead not guilty in the first trial, and the judgement entered against him, he can appeal conviction and sentence. If he plead guilty, he cannot appeal against conviction but can only appeal against sentence. Therefore, to ensure a chance of setting aside judgement, they will normally plead not guilty as advised by ...


2

The first step in the judicial process is arraignment. That's where the bail is set. You can plead guilty right there. Either you can get sentence then there or (for more serious crimes) there is a later hearing. It's extremely rare to plead guilty at an arraignment. At that point you don't even know the evidence against you. If someone represented by the ...


2

A prosecutor has the discretion to change his mind up to the point that the defendant enters his plea in court and the judge accepts the deal. The American Bar Association standards on fulfillment of plea discussions (3-4.2(c) is stronger, not approving of backing out of a deal unless the defendant breaches the agreement or there are extenuating ...


1

The difference is between the Constitutional ability of the President to pardon and a Presidential pardon that results in Paul Manafort no longer being in legal jeopardy. Look at point 5 here. The President is absolutely able to pardon Paul Manafort, but because Manafort's plea deal is so tightly-written (with a bunch of super-broad what-ifs accounted for), ...


1

It's an interesting question, especially in light of a decision that you may have already seen from earlier this month, where a federal judge in West Virginia announced he was no longer accepting plea bargains as a matter of routine. There are lots of potential approaches, including: Expanding the judiciary; Establishing guidelines limiting which ...


1

Other answers appear to assume a utilitarian ethics and argue that plea bargains are beneficial to society (cost, efficiency, etc.) and therefore ethical. However, they fail to address what I feel is the real concern here: the deontological position that it is unethical to believe one thing (the defendant is guilty of murder) but do another (punish the ...


1

Yes, I have done this many times. I always fight all of my traffic tickets in Texas and just plead not guilty. The closer I get to trial date the more anxious my prosecutors are to settle, and they'll usually come up with better and better deals the closer to trial they get. Sometimes trials take 2 or more years to come up. (Texas has weird 'speedy trial' ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible