JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
Bill Bartlett wrote:
>But if that's what you think should happen, then why (apart from professional
>reasons) do you think there is any need for a trial at all? Why not just
>let the police lock up whoever they see fit and save the expense of show
>trials?
That's called pleading out, which is done in most cases here.
jks. Well, that's an exaggeration. Pleading doesn't allow the copos to lock up anyone. They still have have to persaude a magistrate to issue a warrant or find probable cause, then a grand jury to indict, then a judge to take the plea. I can't speak from personal experience to the first two (though the saying about grand juries is that they'll indicta ham sandwich), but I know my own district judge took the plea process very seriously, and she would not accept a plea if she did not think the guy was guilty.
Prosecutors and lawyers are still employed in the process, however. Mandatory minimum sentencing gives the prosecutor even more of an upper hand--plead to a lesser charge or go to trial on charges for which, if convicted, you'll get a mandatory minimum of 15 years?
jks. In federal court there's alos the sentencing guideline, which are sort of like flexible mandatory minimums, and the fight is over what category and enhancement the defendant gets stuffed into. This is far worse than the MMs.
Lots of people figure, well, three years isn't that bad, I guess I'll plead guilty cause the alternative is so much worse. Plus, my lawyer is telling me to take the deal, so how much good will he/she be defending me in court? (few people get a jks as their esq)
jks. Well, thanks, but even the best lawyer can't do much for a lot of defendants. The best lawyer I ever saw, now the head of Justice Crim Investigation, was defending a tax fraudster, he was awesome, it was like watching Baryshnikov dance. His client was convicted, there was nothing to be done on that evidence. I suspect he'd advised the client to cop a plea, and the client refused. The hard fact is -- sorry Bill, this will convince you even more than you already believe I am total sell-out -- most criminal defendants are guilty, and most of them are obviously guilty. Ask any defense lawyer, which is what I am, never mind the prosecutors. We do our best, but mainly the best we can do is to plead to a lesser charge.The wonder is that the cops bother to lie and cheat at all. They don't have to. They mainly win when they play straight. I think its mainly laziness when they lie and cheat, occasionally, in a high profile case, political pressure.
If everyone demanded a trial the U.S. criminal justice system would be completely overwhelmed. Wanna stop the war on drugs? Everyone facing time on a drug charge refuse to plead guilty and demand a jury trial. [Screeeeeech.]
jks. Yes, but it would be a bad choice for most clients, who'd lose and then be convicted of the full range of charges. Plus in fed ct if you plead you get credit for cooperation, which is worth time.
jks
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021124/efe6dce3/attachment.htm>