At the trial I was on the jury, they told us about the defendants prior record after we found him not guilty of attempted murder, so we could get him on felon with a gun.
That’s sentencing, not the trial. Once found guilty at trial , the accused’s record can be used for sentencing purposes.
It’s not about “buying time”. If Big Corp doesn’t appeal the settlement, they are legally obligated to pay it. They can’t just decide they “have no intention of paying”.
But yes, when an unexpectedly large judgement is announced, Big Corp (or more likely, their insurer, who is the entity that is actually going to pay the settlement) will, of course, appeal. A lot of those enormous settlements are improper, and will be reduced on appeal.
Nitpick, you mean verdicts or judgments. Enormous settlements are agreed to and are paid. And, not a nitpick, a lot of enormous verdicts are perfectly justified. (although many get reduced on appeal anyway)
I do mean verdicts, or more rarely, judgements. Thank you for correcting that.
But i strongly disagree that many enormous verdicts are appropriate. However, as this is FQ, i think my comments on that would be off-topic.
I expect that depends on what the person is accused of - I know I’ve seen plenty of people take a plea deal at arraignment for relatively minor charges , like they are arrested for “theft of services” ( farebeating on a bus or train) and plead guilty to "disorderly conduct " but I doubt if it happens with more serious charges.
That’s also the time when the so-called “character witnesses”, who may vouch for the convicted’s motivations, upbringing, or other mitigating factors, usually testify.
That was my experience. For many minor charges a defendant could plead guilty and get released, versus pleading not guilty at arraignment and perhaps not getting released. (another example of the way our criminal justice system fails poor people).
In serious charges you sometimes know it’s coming (like Trump in NYC) and in theory could work out a deal beforehand and enter into it at arraignment. Generally, the court’s arraignment calendar is too busy for such a thing, but a special setting could be worked out. In every case I ever saw, however, one pleaded guilty to a felony at arraignment.
So charcter witnesses don’t usually happen at the trial itself? Or as mentioned earlier, that’s a risky move because it opens a door?
For example, Aaron Swartz was offered “plead guilty and take 6 months, or go to trial and we’ll ask for 35 years.” He chose suicide.
That’s likely because being a felon is an element of the felon in possession crime. I’ve seen cases like the one you’ve described bifurcated (so that the felon in possession is held as a concurrent bench trial) in order to prevent the jury from learning about the conviction. I suppose you could also do it in the way you describe.
Under the Federal Rules, at trial, a defendant can introduce evidence of his own character or (except in sex-offense cases) the character of the victim. But, once he does so, the prosecution can introduce evidence to rebut it. So it’s risky.