Something has puzzled me about plea-bargaining. Since I’m not concerned about speicific crimes but about the mechanics of plea-bargaining, I assume the answer to my question is more or less the same either side of the border (I’m sure one of the other canucks will chime in if my assumption is wrong ).
I understand the concept in general. Joe Blow is charged with something nasty like first degree murder. In order to avoid a severe sentence his lawyer arranges a deal with the crown prosecutor/district attorney such that if he is charged with something less nasty like manslaughter he will plead guilty.
How is that enforced? If I agree to plead guilty to manslaughter as part of a plea bargain but in fact plead innocent, what happens? Can the C.P./D.A. really say “Oops - we didn’t really mean to charge him with manslaughter, we mean’t to charge him with first degree murder”?
I can understand if I am charged with X,Y, and Z that if I plead guilty to X they might drop Y and Z and if I plead innocent to X they don’t drop Y and Z, but I have difficulty with how plea-bargaining a single charge down to a lesser one works.
It’s kind of a contract between the prosecution and the defense. Charges X, Y and Z still stand until such time as the plea bargain is accepted by the court. In exchange for a guilty plea to X from the defense, the prosecution will drop Y and Z. If the defense doesn’t hold up its side of the contract then the prosecution is freed from its obligations under the contract to drop Y and Z. The trial on X, Y and Z proceeds as if the plea bargaining never happened (with the possible exception that the prosecution will probably be pissed off at the waste of time and push for harsher penalties upon conviction).
At least that’s how it works in the US. No idea how it works in Canada but since we share the common law I would imagine it’s similar.
Oh, oops, and upon re-reading your last sentence I didn’t exactly answer that aspect. But the principle is still the same. The prosecution isn’t going to drop charge X until the guilty plea is accepted. So when the defendant is standing before the judge ready to plead guilty to manslaughter, she’s still charged with murder. If she fails to plead guilty (or if for some reason the judge refuses to accept the plea, see Lindie Englund’s court case for a recent example of a refused plea bargain) the murder charge is still there.
But that seems to imply that Joe Blow is charged with both manslaughter and first degree murder at the same time, so that if he pleads innocent to manslaughter then the C.P./D.A can drop the manslaughter charge and throw the first degree murder charge at him and vice-versa if he pleads guilty. I didn’t think that it was possible to be charged with both manslaughter and murder for the same act. I’m still puzzled.
The prosecution can charge the defendant with pretty much anything that fits the fact pattern. Say “murder” is defined as “causing the death of a person with pre-meditation” and “manslaughter” is defined as “causing the death of a person.” Prosecutors will file multiple charges regarding the same incident. The case goes to the jury and the jury feels the defendant did cause a person’s death but did not do it with pre-meditation. They can’t convict of murder but they can convict on the manslaughter charge. If the prosecutor, though, didn’t initially charge manslaughter (only murder), and the jury acquits on the murder charge, the prosecutor can’t go back and start over with a manslaughter charge because of double jeopardy. Filing multiple charges gives the jury more options.
In the US, 95% of people (an actual percentage) who are sentenced to prison never had a trial! They are plea bargained into prison to avoid the possibility of a harsh sentence. Consequently, many are innocent.
You have a right to a trial in which your guilt or innocence is determined by a jury. As with most rights granted you under the U.S. Constitution you can waive that right and plead guilty.
Also, “many are innocent” is bad form. If you assert that many people who plea out are actually innocent you need to show some evidence of that.
While it is not unheard of that someone will plea out even if they are innocent because they feel pressured to do so, keep in mind someone who pleas out made the choice to plead guilty. A legal system has to assume that someone willing to plead guilty actually is.
You can be charged with different offences based on the same set of facts - but you can’t be convicted of more than one similar charge arising out of those facts.
A common example that happens every day is a person the police suspect of drunk driving. There are two Criminal Code offences that might apply: impaired driving, and driving with a blood alcohol reading of more than 0.08. The police normally charge both counts. The evidence needed to convict on the two offences is different: impaired driving depends on the personal observations of witnesses, while 0.08 depends on an analysis of a breath or blood sample. Typically, the 0.08 charge is easier to prove, but it can be highly technical, and the results of the analysis might get tossed out by the court on various grounds. If so, the Crown has the impaired charge as a fall-back.
However, if the Crown makes the case on the 0.08 charge, the Court will enter a judicial stay on the impaired charge, so the accused is not convicted of two offences arising out of the same event.
Getting back to the manslaughter/murder example, under Canadian law a person charged with murder is already effectively charged with manslaughter, which is a lesser included offence to murder. Murder is unlawful homicide with intent to kill, while manslaughter is unlawful homicide based on an unlawful act, such as assault. The Crown doesn’t have to file a separate manslaughter charge to have that in issue at the trial. The judge can instruct the jury that even if they do not find the accused guilty of murder, because of a lack of intent to kill, the jury may also consider whethr the accused is guilty of manslaughter, based on the facts led by the Crown. There’s no need for a separate indictment on the manslaughter charge.
whoops - hit submit instead of preview. Meant to add the following:
So in the case of a person charged with murder who is willing to plead guilty to manslaughter, there’s no need for a second charging document, because manslaughter is already before the court under the murder indictment.
In other cases, where the accused is willing to plead guilty to a less serious offence that is not a lesser included offence to the original charge, a new information or indictment would be needed. I believe the Crown normally enters a stay on the original charge, which the Crown can lift if the accused backs out of the plea agreement.
Then the judge will order a trial (and the deal is off). And this happens regularly, because, as part of the plea-bargain, the defendant must “allocute” to the crime, i.e. testify in a hearing that he did commit the crime he has agreed to plead guilty to. Some people have a hard time doing this.
The allocution is a difference between Canadian and US practice. An accused does not have allocute in Canada. Also, on a related note, we don’t have the “no contest” plea here - you plead “guilty” or “not guilty.”
OK - Thanks! Now I understand the mechanism. I didn’t realize that, for all intents and purposes, you could be charged with both murder and manslaughter (or other pairs of crimes where one “includes” the other) at the same time.
You are charged with a murder you didn’t commit. The DA has evididence which seems incriminating and plans to seek the death penalty. You are black and you are in Houston Texas.
You are offered a “deal”. Plead guilty to a lesser homicide charge and avoid the needle. You’re court appointed attorney, who has a million other cases, says it is your best chance.
galen, you have utterly missed my point. Your argument was:
[ol][li]95% of people who are sentenced to prison never had a trial;[/li][li]They accepted a plea-bargain to avoid a harsh sentence;[/li][li]“Consequently,” many are innocent.[/ol][/li]I am quibbling with your conclusion, i.e., the phrase that follows after the word consequently. I am not quibbling with the notion that innocent people are in prison. Please read Martin Hyde’s explanation, as well looking up the legal concept of allocution, and consider whether, as a matter of logic and law rather than hyperbole and anecdote, your conclusion follows from your premise. I assure you, it does not.
And in Ohio, a defendant need not allocute. The judge will inquire as to whether the defendant is waiving his rights knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently; whether he understands the maximum prison sentence and fine that may be imposed; if he’s had enough time to discuss the plea with counsel and is satisfied with counsel; is under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, etc. However, the defendant will not necessarily be asked “what happened” during the commission of the offense, or to explicitly say “I did it.”
But… one judge before whom I often appeared as a prosecutor was notorious for eliciting what amounted to an allocution. He would then take defendants’ self-serving, guilt-minimizing statement at face value, suggest that they might be innocent after all, and persuade them to have a trial, negating the plea agreement.
Then he’d convict them after a bench trial, and hammer them at sentencing. Not pretty.
In addition to the points already made, one of the ideas you aren’t considering is the fact that while both sides may know that a defendant is guilty of the greater crime, there may be certain elements that the prosecution will find difficult or inordinately expensive (or both) to prove. Rather than chance a defendant walking free on a technicality, the prosecution may elect to offer a plea to ensure some kind of conviction, and the defendant may accept so as not to risk being convicted by a jury on the greater charge.
In the above example, the defendant is quite guilty. But all sides perceive some benefit from the plea agreement.
).