Success Stories

• Child Molestation Attorney
• Murder Defense
• Internet Sex Crimes
• Theft Defense Attorney
• Sexual Assault Defense
• Rape Attorney
• Criminal Lawyer

July 7, 2006

Plea-bargaining and guilty pleas: a curse or an answer to a defendants prayer?

By: Vince Imhoff, Attorney at Law & Helen O. Kim

Plea-bargaining and guilty pleas are a critical element of the criminal legal system.  Plea-bargaining is a process in which a defendant negotiates the terms of punishment in exchange for a guilty plea or a no contest plea. Many times the prosecutor will offer to dismiss some criminal counts or reduce the maximum punishment. There are different reasons why defendants decide to plead guilty or plead no contest and avoid going to trial. Some of the reasons include lower sentencing, lack of evidence to support their case, less costly, and personal desire to confess guilt.  Whatever the reasons are, the practice of plea-bargaining is very common.  Ninety-four percent of felony convictions nationwide are obtained by guilty pleas.  Even convictions for more serious crimes are also commonly obtained by guilty pleas.  The criminal court system is dependant on the practice of plea-bargaining. Under the current structure of the criminal court system it would be impossible to try every case that is filed This raises fundamental concerns to ensure procedures that are necessary to make pleas sufficiently fair and accurate to justify dispensing with the trial process.

Unfortunately, while some defendants are making a wise choice to agree to a plea bargain to limit their punishment, many defendants decide to enter plea agreements out of frustration, delays, pressure and lack of faith in the trial system. Therefore, it is the duty of a defense lawyer to make certain that a plea agreement is truly in the best interests of a client and carries out the best wishes of a client. 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure defines the basic shape of the guilty plea process in federal courts.  Although most guilty pleas take place in state courts, most states have similar rules to Rule 11.  The purpose of Rule 11 is to establish a predicate for valid pleas.  A guilty plea is valid if it is 1) voluntary 2) intelligent, and 3) has a factual basis.  When a defendant pleads guilty under Rule 11, the defendant gives up certain rights such as the right to a jury trial, the right to be represented by counsel, and any mandatory minimum penalty.  Sentencing is left to the judges discretion.  Furthermore, the defendant gives up the right to appeal or to attack the sentencing.  Guilty pleas are almost never challenged on direct appeals because guilty pleas are consensual.  For the same reason, defendants and their attorneys rarely object to errors in a guilty plea proceeding.  All jurisdictions require that claims or challenges to criminal proceedings be raised in a timely fashion.  If timely objections are not made, the claims are deemed procedurally defaulted and they cannot be raised later.  However, when the defendants object to errors in guilty plea proceedings, they almost always raise their claims on habeas corpus many years later.  Habeas corpus (you may have the body) is a writ requiring the production of the prisoner so that the judge may inquire into the fundamental justice of the detention.  Habeas corpus preserves individual liberty and vindicates the rule of law.  It has certain claims you can raise; one is why the defendant did not raise a certain issue until on appeal.  In this situation, the defendant must show 1) cause as to why the defendant did not raise the issue before the appeal and 2) prejudice the defendant experienced because of failure to raise the certain issue.  If the defendant wins the habeas corpus, a new trial is granted. 

In Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970), Brady sought relief under the habeas provision claiming his guilty plea was involuntarily given.  The petitioner claimed that his guilty plea was coerced by the threat of a death penalty, his counsel exerted impermissible pressure upon him, and his plea was induced by representations with respect to reduction of sentence and clemency.  The Supreme Court held that the petitioners plea was not extracted by any sort of threat or violence, or any improper influence, thus the defendants guilty plea was voluntary and valid.  The petitioner was competently counseled, properly advised, and informed of the plea bargain, and thus the Court found that the petitioner acted voluntarily and made an intelligent choice.  The Court noted that just because there are incentives within the criminal system to induce defendants to participate in plea-bargaining and guilty pleas, such incentives do not function as coercion or threats that result in involuntary pleas.  However, the Court is merely concerned with physical coercion and states that there was no physical harm or mental coercion overbearing the will of the petitioner.  Yet, in reality, it is very possible that an individuals will is overborne by the threat of a death penalty, making the plea involuntary.  An innocent defendant, in fear of the threat of a death penalty, may plea guilty to escape such a risk.    

In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the defendant alleged that he pled guilty to second degree murder in order to avoid a possible death penalty although he was innocent of the charges.  The Supreme Court found that the defendant clearly expressed his desire to enter into a guilty plea despite his professed innocence.  The Supreme Court stated that the defendant voluntary pled guilty and the lower court did not coerce or force the defendant to plead guilty.  Rather, the Supreme Court stated that the defendant was not deprived of his free choice to evaluate the situation and determine for himself, whether to go to trial and risk the possibility of a death penalty or waive the trial and plead guilty. 

However, in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976), the defendant pled guilty to a second-degree murder where the trial judge failed to describe the intent term of that crime.  The Supreme Court held that this error denied the defendant his due process rights, regardless of whether the state was able to prove that the killing was intentional, because the defendant did not waive his rights voluntarily.  The failure to inform the defendant of the terms of the crime rendered the defendants plea invalid because he was not informed of all the necessary facts.  Similarly, in United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1434 (11th Cir. 1993), the Court of Appeals found that because the district court failed to specifically question the defendant concerning the waiver of sentence appeal provision, the defendant was not deemed to have knowingly and voluntarily made the waiver, and withdrew the provision from the defendants guilty plea.

Both the prosecution and defense are encouraged to participate in plea-bargaining and avoid going to trial for the interest of the overall justice system.  A guilty plea may result in a lighter sentence and avoid costly litigation.  However, at the same time, a defendant waives many important rights when she chooses to plea guilty.  It is strongly encouraged that a defendant contemplating a guilty plea consults an attorney immediately. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Contest Plea: A no contest plea is a plea where the defendant does not admit that he/she committed the crime, but does concede that the government has evidence against her that could result in a guilty verdict. The court treats a no contest plea identically to a guilty plea in terms of finding the defendant guilty of the crime. In some jurisdictions a no contest plea may limit civil exposure to the defendant based on solely on the plea.

Back to Imhoff & Associates, P.C. Criminal Defense Attorneys - Firm Articles