I was only asking about whether something like the diarrhea excuse would work, not that I’d advocate using it. My story indicates I used it in the past, but I’m not a kid anymore. I’d face the music now if I were asked to plead. No use antagonizing anyone any more. Does anyone plead not guilty just to spite the legal system, make them expend resources on you?
Why are you now making this a third person answer, and not in the form of "I would …’?
Would you or would you not plead guilty to murder 1 if you were guilty of murder 1 and by law were facing a death sentence?
To point out the obvious, if you think you are guilty of manslaughter and not capital murder, then you should in fact plead not guilty to capital murder.
Depending on the circumstances, the difference between manslaughter and murder can mean spending decades more in prison. Why should anybody throw in the towel if there’s any question of whether it’s murder or manslaughter?
if you’re the type of person willing to murder someone, I doubt you’re the type of person to care about any of that.
Pleading “not guilty” at an initial appearance does not mean there will necessarily be a trial. As others have said, pleading “not guilty” gives your attorney access to discovery and time to discuss the case with the prosecution. Then, if your attorney believes that the State can prove its case, they will work out a plea deal. None of this can happen if you plead guilty at an initial appearance.
Around here, the judges will not accept a guilty plea at an initial appearance (except for minor traffic violations).
In THIS case, the prosecutors have an open and shut case. They have no incentive to offer a deal. They can press for the maximum sentence, and feel pretty confident they’ll get it.
And the defendant KNOWS the case is open and shut. He doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He has nothing to offer the prosecutors, which means he can’t make a deal.
So, since he’s facing the maximum sentence and can’t make a deal, what else can he do except… demand a trial, and hope against hope he gets at least one loony or moron on the jury!
The odds are against him at trial, but he figures, “You never know. Get one asshole through voir dire, and maybe I could get a hung jury. What have I got to lose, at this point? I know I’m probably looking at eternity behind bars, but at least I can be a pain in the butt to the prosecutors, which is the only fun I have left. Besides, the local lockup is safer and has better food than Attica. I’d rather spend a few months here.”
In my jurisdiction I don’t know if the judge would even accept a guilty plea during a first appearance. Generally a not guilty plea is automatically entered to give the defendant time to consult with his lawyer and for the lawyer to get all the information. It in no way means that a guilty plea can not be made later.
If it’s open and shut, why bother with a trial at all?
Ask O.J. Simpson why he didn’t plead guilty?
“He seems guilty to me, off with his head.” Is more efficient than jury trials, but doesn’t actually tend to produce fair results in practice for some reason.
In many cases, I wouldn’t know enough about the law to know if I am guilty or not. Like, I might know I killed someone, but I wouldn’t know if it was murder or manslaughter or whatever. How would I know until I had a chance to talk to a lawyer, and how would I get a chance to talk to a lawyer if I pleaded guilty at my very first chance?
(Emphasis Added) – and that’s one of the things OP is missing: that the accused has a right to be properly counseled even if he is going to finally plead guilty, and you buy time for that by not just pleading guilty as you first walk in the door.
The OP is just not placing himself into the process as it is and exists, but in one where having the objectively guilty go through bail hearing and preliminary hearing is some sort of unconscionable waste of the system’s time instead of just a matter of right to due process. He also has a failure of imagination in really placing himself in the perp’s shoes – never mind murder, maybe there you may want to say "hell yeah she needed killin’ ", but in a lot of other circumstances of a crime beng committed why not try for a better outcome and/or a deal?
I’ve noticed that pretty much everybody in this thread states that there are two choices the defendant (the accused) has on a first appearance: guilty or not guilty. Is there no option for an adjournment?
In my jurisdiction, there is; so as to allow examination of discovery, retention of a lawyer, and/or investigation into whether a Legal Aid lawyer is a possibility. Adjournments are common, and I usually always advise my clients that we will adjourn on a first appearance.
Is an adjournment on a first appearance (or second or third appearance, depending on the efficiency of the prosecutor’s office at getting discovery to the defence) not an option in other jurisdictions?
This thread kind of reminds me of the Ted Bundy trial. Bundy was offered a deal by the state of Florida: plead guilty in exchange for life without parole. Bundy, who had murdered a minimum of 30 young women, rejected the deal and opted for a trial.
Had he pleaded guilty, he would have not gone to the electric chair in 1989 and could have very well still be living today.
My dad, then a cop, always told me that, if I got arrested for a crime, “Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make them prove it.”
In my experience, there is always a plea at the first appearance. If the plea is “not guilty”, there is then an adjournment. But it’s not terribly uncommon for there to be an immediate guilty plea. It wouldn’t happen for a murder or a robbery or a serious assault, but it does happen that in cases of shoplifting, drinking in public , “theft of services” (not paying the subway or bus fare) etc a deal may be offered at arraignment.
Exactly what I came in to post. Unless you have a plea deal worked out, at least for offenses greater than traffic tickets, you’re just shooting yourself in the foot by pleading guilty. There’s always the possibility of major evidence not being admissible, unreliable testimony, a botched case, the jury and/or judge providing some sort of unforeseen mercy, etc. That’s the whole point of plea deals, it saves the prosecution time and money, but sometimes even an apparent open and shut case can fail.
It’s sort of like the opposite of submitting to a search without a warrant. For most people, intuition is that if you have nothing to hide, no problem, but ultimately, you have nothing to gain. With a search warrant they have to specify what they’re looking for, so if they happen to come across something else, it’s typically inadmissible. If you submit to a search without it, you could get end up getting nailed or at least harassed for something completely unrelated.
And in comment to another post up thread about traffic court, as I live in Fairfax County which was mentioned, that’s about the only time I’d generally recommend considering it because, at least here, you pay court costs if you plead not guilty and get found guilty. I’ve gone to court for minor traffic citations a couple times and I’ve plead no contest, both times the judge gave me a reduced charge, meaning fewer points on my license and a lower fine. So it’s plead no contest (I really don’t see a reason to plead guilty over that) and take a guaranteed cost and possibly fewer points, or plead not guilty and risk a higher cost.
Because he’s a lying scum murderer?
I never even heard of this case until reading the OP here, but I looked it up. Apparently, Oliver Lee is a young, stupid junkie who committed an armed robbery in broad daylight and shot someone in front of numerous witnesses.
IF (important word, “if”) If what I’ve read is accurate, Lee is guilty as sin, and no sane, intelligent juror could possibly vote to acquit him. Meaning the prosecutors are going to push for a maximum sentence, and have no incentive to offer Lee any kind of leniency.
But in that case, what incentive does Lee have to be a good boy and plead guilty? What’s he supposed to so? Smile and say (pretend he’s a white Cockney rather than an Asian American), “Righto, guv! Put me away for life. It’s a fair cop, innit?”
The prosecutors want to put him in a miserable state prison for decades (I want the same thing!). But look at it from his point of view- why should he make it easy on them?
Maybe he figures there’s a one in a million chance that a sympathetic liberal juror might vote to acquit and create a hung jury. Maybe there’s another one in a million chance a moron will get on the jury. Maybe there’s another one in a million chance a good lawyer might be able to convince one juror that “eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable” or that all young Asian men look alike to white suburban shoppers. Or maybe Lee is just nuts.
The odds aren’t good, but what does Lee have to lose? Plead guilty, and he starts a 20 year stretch in Attica tomorrow. Go to trial, he MIGHT get acquitted. Worst (and most probable) case, he postpones his trip to Attica a few weeks or a few months.
Think hard- can you offer Oliver Lee a compelling reason to plead guilty, rather than spin the wheel and hope for the best?
I never even heard of this case until reading the OP here, but I looked it up. Apparently, Oliver Lee is a young, stupid junkie who committed an armed robbery in broad daylight and shot someone in front of numerous witnesses.
IF (important word, “if”) If what I’ve read is accurate, Lee is guilty as sin, and no sane, intelligent juror could possibly vote to acquit him. Meaning the prosecutors are going to push for a maximum sentence, and have no incentive to offer Lee any kind of leniency.
But in that case, what incentive does Lee have to be a good boy and plead guilty? What’s he supposed to so? Smile and say (pretend he’s a white Cockney rather than a black American), “Righto, guv! Put me away for life. It’s a fair cop, innit?”
The prosecutors want to put him in a miserable state prison for decades (I want the same thing!). But look at it from his point of view- why should he make it easy on them?
Maybe he figures there’s a one in a million chance that a sympathetic black juror might vote to acquit and create a hung jury. Maybe there’s another one in a million chance a moron will get on the jury. Maybe there’s another one in a million chance a good lawyer might be able to convince one juror that “eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable” or that all young black men look alike to white suburban shoppers.
The odds aren’t good, but what does Lee have to lose? Plead guilty, and he starts a 20 year stretch in Attica tomorrow. Go to trial, he MIGHT get acquitted. Worst (and most probable) case, he postpones his trip to Attica a few weeks or a few months.
Think hard- can you offer Oliver Lee a compelling reason to plead guilty, rather than spin the wheel and hope for the best?