Is pleading guilty in a plea deal the same as a conviction? (1 Viewer)

[independentusa]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

 

[washunut]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

Obviously no.

 

[longview]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

I think the only real distinction would be that in a plea DEAL, the defendant is exchanging the guilty plea for
some type of sentencing consideration. Whereas a conviction by a jury , the sentencing will be as the court defines.

 

[Kal'Stang]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

The difference is nil. However if you want to play semantics there is probably a difference. Don't know why it'd matter though. :shrug: In the end they're still considered "Guilty as charged".

Mind providing a link for where you're hearing/reading this?

 

[Xelor]

Procedurally, no, they're not the same. One's right to appeal is very limited if one pleads guilty (AFAIK, Cohen won't have any ability to appeal his plea). Assuming one doesn't appeal or one loses one's appeal, they're the same, and either instance, one's record will show a conviction.

 

[wellwisher]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

Yes there is a difference. If you had to fight the US government in court, you would be outgunned and out funded. For example, the Mueller team is a team of hand picked overpriced lawyers with unlimited time and funding. Who has the money and resources to fight this? This is why the US government has a 95% conviction rate. This extreme rate is not about skill and justice, but is about having a larger army, who can play dirty for years, motivated by swamp career boosting. Many of these accused of anything will take a plea deal, instead going into debt, and still get railroaded in the end. The same corrupt swamp system of justice can also have all the data needed for a speedy conviction, like with Hillary, but hardly spend a dime. Hillary's plea deal was when elected I will not railroad you.

 

[Thoreau72]

Procedurally, no, they're not the same. One's right to appeal is very limited if one pleads guilty (AFAIK, Cohen won't have any ability to appeal his plea). Assuming one doesn't appeal or one loses one's appeal, they're the same, and either instance, one's record will show a conviction.

And I think technically, no court is bound to honor the plea agreement. I think it's very rare for the court to not honor one, but it can happen. I know of one case on the federal level.

 

[Floridafan]

Yes there is a difference. If you had to fight the US government in court, you would be outgunned and out funded. For example, the Mueller team is a team of hand picked overpriced lawyers with unlimited time and funding. Who has the money and resources to fight this? This is why the US government has a 95% conviction rate. This extreme rate is not about skill and justice, but is about having a larger army, who can play dirty for years, motivated by swamp career boosting. Many of these accused of anything will take a plea deal, instead going into debt, and still get railroaded in the end. The same corrupt swamp system of justice can also have all the data needed for a speedy conviction, like with Hillary, but hardly spend a dime. Hillary's plea deal was when elected I will not railroad you.

How can you possibly refer to government lawyers as overpriced. They can all make far more money as private defense attorneys, but choose government service instead.

 

[Logician Man]

Obviously no.

They may be different,but both can,and often do, result in the individual spending time behind bars.

 

[Logician Man]

Yes there is a difference. If you had to fight the US government in court, you would be outgunned and out funded. For example, the Mueller team is a team of hand picked overpriced lawyers with unlimited time and funding. Who has the money and resources to fight this? This is why the US government has a 95% conviction rate. This extreme rate is not about skill and justice, but is about having a larger army, who can play dirty for years, motivated by swamp career boosting. Many of these accused of anything will take a plea deal, instead going into debt, and still get railroaded in the end. The same corrupt swamp system of justice can also have all the data needed for a speedy conviction, like with Hillary, but hardly spend a dime. Hillary's plea deal was when elected I will not railroad you.

Well,if trump is tried,since he is very likely in the top 5%,he should be on a level field if/when the feds go after him.

 

[X Factor]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

The real answer is...it depends. A plea deal could be anything from dismissal of the case in exchange for counseling or community service to a set or recommended time in prison. A plea resulting in prison time is always a conviction. Most jurisdictions (not sure about the Feds, though), have a type of probation that accepts a guilty plea, but doesn’t actually find him guilty and puts the person on probation instead and if they complete the probation, they’re never technically convicted. Obviously though, you’re referring to the recent plea by one of Trump’s whoevers and I’d say, until sentencing, it isn’t a conviction yet but it inevitably will be.

 

[Taylor]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

Yes, there's a difference. He has entered a plea, he has not yet been convicted. There has been no sentencing. If he so desired, he could file a motion and withdraw the plea. He can't do that after he's been convicted.

 

[HowardBThiname]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

Big difference.

A guilty plea insinuates that the defendant is pleading guilty to much lesser charges than he might otherwise have been convicted of.

Pleading guilty removes the defendant's right to appeal later on, whereas a conviction can be overturned or appealed.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

They're the same in effect, but that doesn't mean there aren't huge problems with innocent people taking a plea deal because they're being threatened with worse charges; at the advice of their own underfunded and overworked defense no less.

In a less corrupt legal system, prosecutors would charge whatever they can make a case for. However, there is a perverse disincentive when it comes to seeking a certain conviction rate.

How anyone could sleep at night after strong arming someone they knew to be innocent into the system is beyond me.

 

[X Factor]

Yes there is a difference. If you had to fight the US government in court, you would be outgunned and out funded. For example, the Mueller team is a team of hand picked overpriced lawyers with unlimited time and funding. Who has the money and resources to fight this? This is why the US government has a 95% conviction rate. This extreme rate is not about skill and justice, but is about having a larger army, who can play dirty for years, motivated by swamp career boosting. Many of these accused of anything will take a plea deal, instead going into debt, and still get railroaded in the end. The same corrupt swamp system of justice can also have all the data needed for a speedy conviction, like with Hillary, but hardly spend a dime. Hillary's plea deal was when elected I will not railroad you.

I guarantee you, there is no shortage of highly skilled private attorneys that will take on such a nationally high profile defendant, pro bono if necessary. There’s also the Federal public defenders office that has exactly the same resources as the US attorneys.

 

[WillyPete]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

In any sort of plea deal, you're skipping the whole trial, so a defending lawyer probably considers it a point of pride that he didn't lose a trial, but rather that his client made a strategic decision to avoid the unknowns of a trial.

Doesn't make much difference to us in the peanut gallery, unless we're looking for a high end defense attorney.

 

[Xelor]

And I think technically, no court is bound to honor the plea agreement. I think it's very rare for the court to not honor one, but it can happen. I know of one case on the federal level.

What I think you're getting at is the distinction between "pleading guilty" and "pleading guilty in accordance with a plea agreement."

• "Basic" Pleading Guilty --> Defendant pleads guilty to XYZ charges in lieu of standing trial. People do this all the time, but mostly with "low grade" offenses, particularly ones that don't merit jail time.
• Pleading subject to a plea agreement --> This differs from a "basic" guilty pleading in that the defendant may be required to do something and in exchange for doing it, the prosecution also agrees to some set of terms pertaining to nature of the charges being pled to and to sentencing recommendations.
  • Is the defendant agreeing to plead guilty? Yes.
  • Does the defendant have a performance requirement? Depends on the agreement.
  • May the prosecution have agreed to let the defendant plead guilty to "this" charge instead of "that" one where "this one" is less egregious an offense than is "that one?" Most likely, yes, but it doesn't have to be that way.
  • In any case this, as with the "basic" guilty plea, is merely the defendant saying, "I'm guilty of XYZ and I will accept the penalty appropriate to being thus guilty."

It is true that a plea agreement can be rejected by the judge that hears it during one's pleading hearing and I'm aware of the circumstances under which that can/will happen.

• Reference: Can a Judge Reject the Plea You Made with the Prosecution?)

Once the judge accepts the defendant’s guilty or no contest plea and enters a conviction, that judge can’t later overturn the plea agreement. However, when the parties agree upon a negotiated plea requiring defendant to perform certain conditions, the court retains jurisdiction until the conditions are satisfied. If the defendant doesn’t satisfy the conditions, the judge can reject the plea and re-sentence the defendant. An example is a defendant who, in order to receive community service instead of jail time, agreed to but failed to complete the assigned service. (Source)

Bold:

• What case would that be?

I'm not by any means suggesting there is no such case, for there is bound to be more than one.

As goes any specific case wherein the plea was rejected is why it was rejected? Did, for example, the defendant fail in fact or substance to comply with the requirements? Was there a state of mind factor (re: the defendant) driving the rejection? Was it some other factor? The informative value of there having been rejections derives from the verisimilitude of germane circumstances and (non-)behavior between any two cases.

As I noted in the post to which you responded, the difference between a guilty plea and a jury conviction is largely procedural. High level (see above):

• Guilty Plea-Agreement Acceptance Process
  1. Charges filed
  2. Defendant and prosecution talk and and arrive at an agreement that the defendant will plead guilty to some specific charges in return for XYZ.
  3. Defendant appears at a plea hearing and pleads guilty (or maybe "nolo").
  4. Court provisionally accepts or rejects the plea.
     • If the defendant must perform one or more actions re: the plea agreement.
       1. Defendant performs in accordance with plea requirements --> Plea agreement becomes formally accepted.
       2. Defendant fails to behave in accordance with the plea requirements --> Plea agreement is rejected.
     • If there's no performance requirement and the defendant is sane, understands what s/he's doing, etc. the court accepts agreement.
  5. Once the court has finally-accepted the pleading and plea agreement and entered a conviction re: the defendant, the legal process moves to the sentencing phase.
  6. Sentence rendered
  7. Defendant serves the sentence and has almost no right to appeal the pleading or the sentence.
• Jury Verdict Process
  1. Charges filed
  2. Defendant pleads innocent
  3. Trial commences
  4. Verdict rendered
  5. Process moves to the sentencing phase
  6. Sentence rendered
  7. Defendant may appeal the verdict
  8. Appeals process commences; however, the defendant must serve the sentence rendered during the appeal process' conduct.

The above is a general outline of just a part of the legal process. If you want to see the whole process, click here.

 

[independentusa]

Procedurally, no, they're not the same. One's right to appeal is very limited if one pleads guilty (AFAIK, Cohen won't have any ability to appeal his plea). Assuming one doesn't appeal or one loses one's appeal, they're the same, and either instance, one's record will show a conviction.

This came about when someone said that no one had ever been convicted of the crime Cohen plead to. When another talking head said that Cohen had been convicted, the first one said that pleading to a crime was no conviction. Hope that made sense.

 

[Cardinal]

A GOP talking head on TV says that pleading guilty in a plea deal is not the same as a conviction. Do you think there is a difference in the law between pleading guilty in a plea deal and a conviction?

No. Guilty is guilty.

 

[Xelor]

This came about when someone [Person A] said that no one had ever been convicted of the crime Cohen plead to. When another talking head [Person B] said that Cohen had been convicted, the first one said that pleading to a crime was no conviction. Hope that made sense.

Your explanation makes enough sense for now; however, it doesn't speak to why you asked whether pleading guilty is the same as being convicted. Were you thinking that the distinction Person B was making pertained to the legal esoterica distinguishing the conviction by trial and conviction by pleading processes?

I can't say what was in Person B's mind, but I can say that, without question, people have been convicted -- regardless of the process by which they were convicted -- of the same charges to which Cohen pled guilty.