- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
In this case the victims are fine with the plea deal. However, you will sometimes read where the victims and/or their families are not ok with a plea deal.Cleveland kidnapper avoids death penalty with plea deal
Cleveland kidnapper avoids death penalty with plea deal
How much input should victims and/or victim's families have in plea deals?
The following is a well-known recent news story. This thread is about the concept, not this particular story, but of course this particular story can be used to discuss the concept.
In this case the victims are fine with the plea deal. However, you will sometimes read where the victims and/or their families are not ok with a plea deal.
What do you think?
Some states have victims' rights law that require a prosecutor to discuss the terms of any plea deal with the victim of the crime before making the offer to the defendant.
"The system would collapse if every case that was filed in the criminal justice system were to be set for trial," says Judge Caprice Cosper of the Harris County Criminal Court in Houston, Texas. "The system would just entirely collapse."
A defendant's right to a speedy trial will usually be defined by a state statute. The statute will specify the number of days or months the prosecution has to bring the defendant to trial. In many jurisdictions, the prosecution generally has 60 to 120 days to bring an imprisoned defendant to trial unless the defendant waives the right to a speedy trial. The time period is generally longer for a defendant out of custody.
I disagree. I think victim impacts are relevant as to the sentence, so any plea deal that involves a set sentence should have the victim input, even it is for the court to decide whether or not to accept it. Where I live, the courts are not required to accept a plea deal and that is a required disclosure in accepting a guilty plea--that the court can accept the plea and then impose whatever sentence is allowed by allow.
Semi-related question. I've always wondered this, but have never been able to find an answer.
Let's say a person pleads guilty in a plea deal. Then, the plea deal is rejected by the judge/court. Is the defendant still bound by their guilty plea? Or, even if they're not bound by it, can their willingness to plead guilty be used against them in a subsequent trial?
Semi-related question. I've always wondered this, but have never been able to find an answer.
Let's say a person pleads guilty in a plea deal. Then, the plea deal is rejected by the judge/court. Is the defendant still bound by their guilty plea? Or, even if they're not bound by it, can their willingness to plead guilty be used against them in a subsequent trial?
How much input should victims and/or victim's families have in plea deals?
The following is a well-known recent news story. This thread is about the concept, not this particular story, but of course this particular story can be used to discuss the concept.
In this case the victims are fine with the plea deal. However, you will sometimes read where the victims and/or their families are not ok with a plea deal.
What do you think?
Well like I said, the Court cannot accept the guilty plea until such time as the person is informed of several things, including that it is not bound by a plea deal. If the plea is not accepted, then you have a trial. None of the things involving the plea are relevant to the trial because none of the questions involve did you do it or are factual as to the crime other than the charge and the maximum sentence, the right to have the case heard by a jury, etc.. Before a jury, no, but obviously if you go to a bench trial and end up with the same judge it is a little hard to unring the bell/ignore the elephant in the corner, etc. I have never had it happen personally. I always make them complete the form themselves before they step foot in front of the judge and all they have to do is respond to the questions and sign the form in open court.
Now I have been a casual witness to a case where the lawyer clearly advised the defendant of everything because I could hear him doing it; the person entered the plea; and then once they got taken back to the holding cell and then freaked out and said the lawyer tricked them once the reality of a 15 year sentence set in on them. In that case, the person was not allowed to withdraw the plea and the lawyer was not allowed to be in the same room with his client unprotected
Cool. Thanks for the info.
Regarding the part in red... I've always thought it was unrealistic when a judge instructs the jury to disregard something that has been said. How do you "unhear" something? Even if you try to, it's still in the back of your mind. It also wouldn't surprise me if some attorney do this on purpose.
I disagree. I think victim impacts are relevant as to the sentence, so any plea deal that involves a set sentence should have the victim input, even it is for the court to decide whether or not to accept it. Where I live, the courts are not required to accept a plea deal and that is a required disclosure in accepting a guilty plea--that the court can accept the plea and then impose whatever sentence is allowed by allow.
Now I have been a casual witness to a case where the lawyer clearly advised the defendant of everything because I could hear him doing it; the person entered the plea; and then once they got taken back to the holding cell and then freaked out and said the lawyer tricked them once the reality of a 15 year sentence set in on them. In that case, the person was not allowed to withdraw the plea and the lawyer was not allowed to be in the same room with his client unprotected
Then in this case there should be NO impact statements at all. The defendant is accepting a plea agreement to benefit the state, and tangentially himself by expecting a lower level of listed offense, a much reduced sentence, or both. If his sentence can be affected by an impact statement after he had committed to a guilty plea there isn't much point in not going to trial. Might as well drag the process out if he is as likely to get the same sentence ether way, at least he'll break the monotony of his jail time with trips to and from court.
I wouldn't see much reason to advise a client to accept a plea deal if it was no real "deal" at all.
No the judge imposed the sentence in that case that was the agreed upon sentence which was the minimum the sentencing guidelines would have called upon his conviction from what I heard of it as they were asking me if I by chance had a copy of the manual on me because the Judge had misplaced the Court's copy. My understanding is there may have been some aggravating factors that they were fearful would result in him getting even more time. Prisoners have buyer's remorse on plea deals they take and blame their lawyers. That particular lawyer who is the former head of the Public Defender's Office now would be the only lawyer I would want representing me if I were ever charged with a serious crime. The best criminal lawyer I have ever seen--he just was stuck with clients who more often than not had no defense because they were busted red-handed.Frankly I am not surprised at the client's response. Either the lawyer did not advise him as "clearly" as you assumed (i.e. taking into consideration all factors, such as client's level of intelligent understanding, chances that he would probably get a heavy sentence anyway, etc.) or did not evaluate the victim's possible impact on that particular judge's ruling history before recommending the deal. Plea deals are of little advantage to the defendant if he really gets nothing from one.
Well if you are guilty and have no defense, it at least let;s you argue cooperation on sentencing and will save them costs associated with the trial as part of their sentence. If the state has to bring in a lab or handwriting expert from somewhere, and you are found guilty, then you are ordered to repay that as part of the court costs. Since most felony sentences are bifurcated unless the defendant waives--the plea is entered one term but the sentencing occurs the next term as a second hearing on non-jury trials-- it is a leap of faith either way. I never advise a client to enter a guilty plea as a matter of policy. That is their choice to make without me pressuring them.
No the judge imposed the sentence in that case that was the agreed upon sentence which was the minimum the sentencing guidelines would have called upon his conviction from what I heard of it as they were asking me if I by chance had a copy of the manual on me because the Judge had misplaced the Court's copy. Mu understanding is there may have been some aggravating factors that they were fearful would result in him getting even more time. Prisoners have buyer's remorse on plea deals they take and blame their lawyers. That particular lawyer who is the former head of the Public Defender's Office now would be the only lawyer I would want representing me if I were ever charged with a serious crime. The best criminal lawyer I have ever seen--he just was stuck with clients who more often than not had no defense because they were busted red-handed.
If I recall correctly, you mentioned you were located in Texas, right? I don't think charges incurred by the state in presenting it's case are typically assigned to a defendant found guilty in a criminal case in most other states. I could be wrong about other states too, but that's the first time I've heard of it. Besides which, there is ALWAYS a defense, good, bad, or indifferent (but hopefully neither of the latter).
Oh, well in that case the client simply misunderstood what was happening and I can only fault the attorney if he did not make this crystal clear. I mean, if the defendant knew before he entered the courtroom he would get 15 years if he accepted the deal then he has nothing to complain about.
No I am not in Texas. Thank God.
How much input should victims and/or victim's families have in plea deals?
The following is a well-known recent news story. This thread is about the concept, not this particular story, but of course this particular story can be used to discuss the concept.
In this case the victims are fine with the plea deal. However, you will sometimes read where the victims and/or their families are not ok with a plea deal.
What do you think?
I disagree. I think victim impacts are relevant as to the sentence, so any plea deal that involves a set sentence should have the victim input, even it is for the court to decide whether or not to accept it. Where I live, the courts are not required to accept a plea deal and that is a required disclosure in accepting a guilty plea--that the court can accept the plea and then impose whatever sentence is allowed by allow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?