Glenn Ford Trial

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

When we think of the concept of plea bargaining many negatively criticize it claiming that it aids away from serving justice that the criminal and legal system strives to aim for. Douglas Maynard writes about how an individual, Bradley Manning, requested a personal plea to president Obama due to the unexpected length of his sentence. Douglas Maynard in “Defendant Attributes in Plea Bargaining” discusses how concern should be given to how person-descriptions are used by changed parties in the negotiation of diverse cases such as Manning (Course Notes, Part 8). Seven areas are described ranging from beginning with negotiations to the structure of common sense knowledge. Two areas in particular stand out to me that are applicable to Manning’s

It all starts with backed up courtrooms. A man is charged with killing another man. There is no evidence to convict this man of these charges. This leads the prosecutors to work out a plea-bargain. The pressure of other cases and the need for a guilty charge is what leads plea-bargaining to happen more every year. As a result many criminals get off easy and in return prosecutors look good for winning the case.

According to Professor Eve Brensike Primus, the Public defenders in “New Orleans Parish were handling the equivalent of 19,000 misdemeanor cases per attorney annually” (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). In effect, Professor Brensike estimates that each case received only about seven minutes (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). Arguably, spending just seven minutes per client is not quality defense. With such a high number of clients to represent, plea bargains become a reality for the majority of cases . The problem with the plea bargain, however, is the assumption of guilt. Pleading essentially equates to admitting guilt in exchange for a lesser punishment. Thus, even if a client believes in his innocence, an attorney may opt to ignore the pleas of innocence (Brensike, 2016, p.1776). Ignoring pleas of innocence go against the presumption of innocence, where defendants are “innocent until proven guilty.” Automatically defaulting to plea bargains does not fall under that presumption. Recognizing the problems when it comes to funding and caseload, some individuals have put forth ideas in the form of

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 some cases, plea bargaining does not undermine our criminal justice system because the defendant should be allowed to weigh their options; especially because this plea will affect their lives. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge can benefit the defendant in multiple ways; such as, it can save them paying extensive lawyer bills or maybe they don’t wish to spend their whole life in jail. However, if the prosecutor or even the judge bullied and threatens the defendant into accepting the plea bargain; that action is undermining our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and it is the responsibility of the state to prove one’s guilt. Yet in the case of Charles Gampero, Erma Faye Stewart, or anyone else mentioned in the documentary; either their lawyers or appointed judge were not even concern with the defendant’s innocence or guilt. Plea bargains should not be forced onto a defendant but given as an option, there is no need for threats or bullying; that action is what undermines our criminal justice system. This action—and also a statement made during the documentary—everyone who shows up in court is considered guilty

In addition, pleading guilty results in lower court costs and the process is much quicker. However, charge negotiation can fail to balance the rights of offenders as offenders may be forced to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit. The rights of society are also balanced as this result in a greater rate of criminal convictions, which is far greater than no conviction at all. On the other hand, justice is scarcely achieved for victims during charge negotiation as serious crimes committed by the offender can go unpunished and retribution is not achieved for victims. Furthermore, the charge negotiation process also lacks transparency as negotiations are made between the accused and the prosecution. An example of charge negotiation not achieving justice for victims is the Nanette May case, which resulted in the new 2010 guidelines requiring victims and the police officer

Pleas don’t come without drawbacks or dangers. Some fear that an innocent defendant may be pressured into a confession and plea out of fear of a more severe penalty if convicted. Another drawback is that some vicious criminals will get lenient treatment and get less than they deserve and be back out in a shorter time. “More than 90% of convictions come from negotiated pleas, which means that less than 10% of criminal cases result in trial.” This statistic starts to answer a question I had about our system. “What are the effects of plea bargaining in our courts and should there be more control over them?” The obvious effects are that fewer cases actually go to trial. With less cases

“...plea bargaining can benefit all concerned’ in a criminal case. There are advantages for defendants, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.”2 These advantages include a sure and quick sentencing for the defendant without the massive stress a trial would bring, a quick win for the prosecutor and more time to work on bigger cases, defense attorneys get their fee and are able to devote more resources to bigger cases, and judges are able to let everything go much faster within the court and allow other cases to get their fair and speedy trial. With all that there’s a lot of positive in the plea bargain for those involved, but there's even more when you look into the cost factor that goes into these trials and people working on the case. The plea bargain is suspected to save the states an estimated millions of dollars per year in legal fees and other such costs. Not only that but the plea bargain helps keep cases moving quickly and keeps the system from being bogged down like it is feared would happen if every single case went to trial. Despite all the good that plea bargaining does for our society and our judicial system nothing is without it’s downsides, and the plea bargain is no

A plea bargain (“offer”) is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecuting agency may offer the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a proposal of a lighter than the maximum sentence. This opportunity allows defendants to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial on a more serious charge. This also allows all involved parties to keep the court’s calendars light without exhausting resources of a court, potential public defenders, and prosecutors who are all salaried for by the expense of tax payers. If every case in the criminal justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down.

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 use of plea bargaining has been prevalent in the modern Justice system throughout generations. It was not until the early twentieth century that its use became common and admissible in courts. During the early twenties the great experiment of prohibition came about, legally this resulted in the over criminalization of many laws, and saw the courts swell far beyond overcapacity. Although it's been legally used for over a hundred years, the plea bargain saw its real start begin with this massive influx of criminals. Throughout its early history the plea bargain was seen as a tool to buy freedom, lawyers and judges did not try and hide the price tag of a reduced scented, naturally it was used as a tool of corruption. Even after the end of prohibition the United States government searched to over

An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence. It is really impossible to predict what a jury is going to decide in a trial. I personally think that plea bargaining is being used as an easy way out; instead of having the person who committed the crime pay for what they did by serving the whole time. By managing a plea bargain the terms can sometimes be used to include pondering on how it works and who it can help.

Each year thousands of people are tried through the criminal justice system and each case is unique in its own way. This essay will evaluate three real life cases where, a case depict the unique processes related to different courts, a defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial, and a case where a defendant was wrongly accused and later exonerated.

Plea bargaining is when a person has been charged with an offence and through bargaining with the prosecution they plea to a lower offence with a lower maximum penalty. This can affect an end result of two people, if they have committed the same offence, but one plea bargains and the other does not. For example is a sexual assault rape involving the gang rape of two 16 year old girls, the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) entered into a pleas bargain with the accused. In return for the guilty pleas, the DPP agreed not to mention that a knife had been used in the attack. This was done without the knowledge of the victims. This shows an inequality in plea bargaining in the criminal justice system.