Criminal proceedings

Factual Questions
1

Let’s start by saying, I don’t need answers fast, I’m not in any trouble. :sunglasses: If someone is charged with a criminal offense, at what stage of the proceedings may they take a plea deal? Does it just have to occur prior to trial?

Next, I think it’s up to the defense to decide whether to have a jury or go before a judge. Is this true in all cases or only certain ones? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of either?

Finally, if someone was charged with misdemeanors and then, later was charged with a felony, different crime but same nature, could the misdemeanor charges affect the outcome of the felony trial and vice versa if the defendant had only been charged not tried yet?

I know different laws apply to different states. I’m in PA btw.

2

A plea deal may be taken at any stage; sometimes they are even taken after sentencing! (That’s pretty rare.) Of course, that is all contingent on the prosecutor offering a plea deal in the first place, and usually the judge has to approve of any deals.

In the US, a criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial for any felony case. He may decide to waive that right if he plans a defense that is primarily or mostly based on technical matters of law rather than the facts of the case. In that case the judge acts as the trier of facts and the law.

I don’t quite understand what you mean by the third question. When are these two trials occurring, or are they the same trial?

3

Thanks for the info. As to the last question, let’s say hypothetically, someone were charged with a misdemeanor for a dui (I have no law experience, so I’m just using this crime as an example.) They haven’t gone to trial yet, but in the meantime they are charged again with a dui, this time a felony due to the circumstances of the crime. Could the fact that other charges are present affect either outcome even though the defendant has only been charged, not found guilty or not guilty.

4

Even within states, the court procedure and certain court rules can be substantially different between counties/jurisdictions. But from state-to-state, there is a huge variance.

In Pima (Tucson and surrounding area) and Maricopa (Phoenix and surrounding cities) County, AZ, for felony charges, a plea offer extended by the prosecutor’s office is only available at a certain, somewhat later stage of the proceedings, but still well before trial. That plea offer usually, but not always, guarantees either a lower level felony than the defendant is charged and/or a fixed sentence (probation, probation with a certain amount of jail time, a certain prison range with the range depending on the class of felony, or a fixed prison term). In these jurisdictions, the plea offers often times also come with an expiration date, usually at least a month or so before any trial or final hearing date prior to trial. Someone could try to plead guilty straight-up to their charges at an earlier stage in the proceeding, but the judges wouldn’t be very prepared to handle that and pleading guilty straight-up would essentially be the same as going to trial and losing, only without any possible guarantees or punishment ceilings a plea offer might have.

The Sixth Amendment has been interpreted to give defendants a right to a trial by jury for all offenses where they may be incarcerated in jail/prison for more than six months. Despite the clear “in all criminal prosecutions” preceding language in the Amendment. Some states go further and provide a right to a trial by jury for either whole classes of misdemeanors or for certain misdemeanors where the maximum sentence of incarceration someone could receive would be six months or less. For example, in Arizona, a DUI (driving under the influence) is a class 1 misdemeanor (the highest of the three classes of misdemeanor) and even a first time offender convicted of a DUI must, by law, spend 24 hours in jail with another 9 days that can be suspended if the defendant successfully completes an alcohol abuse education class. The maximum sentence a defendant can face for a class 1 misdemeanor in AZ is exactly 6 months in jail, but because of the mandatory jail time imposed by law upon conviction, the AZ legislature has made DUIs a specific offense where a defendant has a right to a trial by jury.

The factors that go into a defendant and their attorney deciding on whether they want to go with a trial by jury or trial by judge alone are complex, but the default setting (where there is a right to a trial by jury) is generally a jury trial. Judge-alone trials usually might be done if there are complex legal issues or arguments that might “turn off” or strike a jury as tricky or disingenuous or there are particularly bad facts/photos/videos/etc. that might unduly sway a jury but have less of an impact on a judge and there is still a good factual or legal argument that can be made despite the bad or damaging materials.

(In the military justice system, this issue is even more complicated since a military panel, which is roughly kinda/sorta comparable to a civilian jury, does not have to vote unanimously on guilt and prior to 2017, only had to vote 2/3 in favor of guilt for a conviction to occur. Also, again prior to 2017, if an accused service member picked a trial by military panel, the military panel would get to decide the sentence upon a conviction. In the civilian world, outside of death penalty cases where a jury has to unanimously recommend a death sentence following a conviction, civilian juries generally do not have a role in sentencing.)

As for the last question, generally, if charged by the same sovereign, someone cannot be convicted in two separate cases for the same criminal conduct. That would generally be double jeopardy and subject someone to double punishment. For example, someone could not be charged with misdemeanor assault (which in Arizona is a combo of assault and battery) for punching someone in the head, the person later dies of that single punch a day later, and then charged in a different court with felony manslaughter by punching someone in the head, and have both cases proceed to trial. The misdemeanor charge would be dismissed so that the felony charge could proceed without complication.

5

This is all very informative, I appreciate it. If I’m understanding correctly the jury/judge decision often has a lot to do with how technical the case is. I don’t know if I’m being clear with my last question. I understand that felony charges would override misdemeanor charges but I’m thinking about two completely separate incidents with different victims. So, our defendant has been charged with a misdemeanor and is awaiting trial for let’s say reckless endangerment. I think that could be classified as a misdemeanor. While awaiting trial on that charge, the defendant commits another act of reckless endangerment with a different victim and the circumstances of this case are such that he’s charged with a felony this time. I’m guessing two separate crimes, different victims and degree of charges would mean separate trials. That may be what I’m not understanding. Assuming two separate trials could the circumstances of the one case be used against the defendant in the other trial or would there simply be one trial with all the evidence presented.

6

If I hit someone and am convicted of misdemeanor battery, and after the conviction the person dies, can my conviction be overturned and then I get charged with a felony?

Regards,
Shodan

7

A few years ago I was sued in a civil matter (I won, yeah!!).

In the early stages, my attorneys filed a motion demanding a jury trial. As I understood it, this was done strategically.

8

With the caveat that every state is different in both substantive law and procedurally, even a misdemeanor trial likely wouldn’t be able to occur until at least several weeks if not several months after an incident. The more time passes between an offense and the medical effect, the harder it will be to prove causation, unless the victim is in the hospital the entire time and it is clear from the circumstances.

A victim dying later wouldn’t be legal cause to suddenly void or set aside a defendant’s misdemeanor conviction in favor of a felony prosecution, though maybe a given state’s laws might allow such a move. If a victim were seriously injured through a punch, such has having one or more broken bones, then the offense could be charged as an aggravated assault, a felony. Generally, if a victim looks like they could die or face more serious injuries due to complications, the prosecutor might either seek a delay in going to trial or simply dismiss the case voluntarily with the intent to reinstate the same or more serious charges later if the victim suddenly dies or takes a turn for the worse. If a victim were in a coma the entire time and could theoretically die at any moment, it would be likely that a defendant were charged with felony aggravated assault in the first place.

9

Thanks.

Regards,
Shodan

10

Don’t most states have the proviso that a person must die within a year due to the defendant’s action, for the charge to be some form of “…causing death”?

Most states, too, have a rule about introducing evidence irrelevant to the actual charge - so bringing up the defendant’s record, or some other case - finished or not - should not be allowed (except, according to Law and Order, if it shows a pattern of behavior?)

One thing I recall reading was that juries are more likely to be swayed by emotion than fact compared to a judge. If the defendant is a big guy with half his face tattooed and the victim is a young lady of 90 lbs., or someone who shows up to court in a wheelchair with 3 casts on, the defendant may want to opt for a trial by judge. Optics are important.

11

Just one other note: in roughly 20 states, the jury trial right belongs to the state as well as the accused. That is, even if the defendant wants a bench trial, the state may demand a jury trial.

12

Yes, two separate trials. The jury in each would not be told about the charges in the other case (with limited exceptions).

13

The decision of whether to request a jury trial versus a bench trial has to do with how technical the case is. The right simply depends on how severe the charge is.

Most states did; it was a doctrine adopted from English common law called the “year and a day rule.” It has now been abolished in most US jurisdictions either by legislation or judicial decree, given that modern medicine/life support makes it irrational.

14

That still makes things weird. I assume the rule is that you caused damage equivalent to death? Otherwise, the incentive would be to plea-bargain ASAP before the person dies; then you would be protected from murder charges by double jeopardy.

15

Thanks, that’s what I was curious about, although I wonder if the cases are similar enough, if a judge would allow it. I’m sure each case is different unless there’s a precedent.

16

Here is Federal Evidence Rule 404(b)

Like most things in law, there are usually arguments for and against the use of such evidence. The more similar the two crimes, the more prejudicial the evidence would be.

17

The rule is simply that the criminal act be the proximate cause of the victim’s ultimate death.

Double jeopardy may or may not attach. If the crimes are “the same,” that is there is no element of one that is not present in the other, then double jeopardy prohibits a re-conviction. But that doesn’t apply where, say, the defendant was convicted of battery and later convicted of negligent homicide. Battery requires intent, while negligent homicide does not; homicide requires the death of the victim, which battery does not.

But either way, the prosecutor is not going to rush to plea bargain if the victim is on life support.

18

That makes things clearer, thanks.

19

That should have said there is an element in each that is not present in the other.

20

So you mean, if I understand: if A beats B until B ends up in a coma, the A is convicted of battery. Then A dies - the question is, what actions constitutes battery? I have trouble seeing that there is an element of battery that is not an element of manslaughter?

Whereas, say, if evidence came out that A had conspired with C to perform the act, then a conspiracy to commit manslaughter charge could be laid later?