Where in the Constitution is the plea bargain system that prosecutor’s currently use provided for? Think about it, if you were a founding father would you want to let prosecutors make charges and then bargain with the accused if they do something for the prosecutor such as stand witness against another defendant.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
Where does the Constitution prohibit the use of plea bargaining?
It’s not like people are being charged with crimes they didn’t commit.
Where in the Constitution is the plea bargain system that prosecutor’s currently use
provided for? Think about it, if you were a founding father would you want to let
prosecutors make charges and then bargain with the accused if they do something
for the prosecutor such as stand witness against another defendant.
Very little in the Constitution sets up any “systems”, rather guidelines with which various activities must/should comply. The Founding Fathers, with an eye to the European experience - and particularly Britain - were concerned about rights to privacy, false witness, compelled testimony, e al.
Plea bargaining encompasses many different circumstances, including leniency for testimony, or an agreement to a lesser charge to reduce the public burden (court costs, etc…). As long as “plea bargaining” doesn’t cross those Constitutional guidelines (say, the right to not self-incriminate - see 5th Amendment, as opposed to the Spanish Inquisition), there isn’t a Constitutional problem. There are then guidelines, policies, rules, etc… set by court precedent, prosecution offices (DOJ on down to county), etc… there to assure Constitutional compliance as well as compliance with historical court decisions/interpretations.
There is no constitutional prohibition on leniency, only on cruel & unusual punishment.
Article 3, Section 2, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury…” There are no amendments affecting this, and you cannot claim that, although the Constitution defines a certain system, it does not expressly prohibit another system and therefore that system can exist. My point here is that plea bargaining can and HAS been used to bully individuals along with being used to commit other abuses.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
The Constitution doesn’t say much about the powers of prosecutors, or about the prosecutors themselves for that matter. It is assumed that the state will handle criminal matters, and that it has the option to choose not to.
What the Constitution does say about the subject limits the power of the state; plea bargaining is trading away the power to prosecute for a high crime in return for the defendant trading away the power to plead innocent. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution, but neither is any other sort of bartering.
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
It seems like if you interpret Article III Section 2 literally, there would be no arraignments (sp.?) at all. I mean, why plea guilty or not guilty if all criminal cases go to trial? I don’t get it.
I see your point Boris; there is a lot of stuff we take for granted that is not mentioned in the Constitution expressly. The main reason that I started this thread was because of the recent plea bargain in the Matthew Shephard murder trial, primarily because the case had already gone through trial and the jury was already in deliberations, and the terms of the bargain included the denial of all apeals.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
That’s interesting. I’d never heard of a bargain which included a no-appeals agreement. I wonder if that’s very rare, or if I’ve been spending too much time taking hot baths and not enough time with Criminal Law for Dummies. Just kidding, I don’t know if there is such a book.
**US Constitution, Art III, Sec 2, Cl 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. **
*Boris B: It seems like if you interpret Article III Section 2 literally, there would be no arraignments (sp.?) at all. I mean, why plea guilty or not guilty if all criminal cases go to trial? I don’t get it. *
The arraignment is where you (or your lawyer) state if you are not-guilty or guilty. That is, “I want a trial” or “It’s a fair cop; take me away”.
The subject clause states what kind of trial is called for if one is needed. (There could be trial-by-burning-at-the-stake; if you died, you were guilty 
) You don’t need a trial if you plead guilty at arraignment.
P.S. - Note that the clause says “The Trial of all Crimes”, not “All Crimes shall be Tried”. - AWB
You’re not the only one to question the legality of plea bargains, threemae. Within the last year or so, a U.S. court actually ruled that plea bargains could no longer be used. I’m not sure if the court based its ruling on Constitutional or other issues, though.
There was a helluva furor over the ruling, with both prosecutors and defense attorneys saying they’d be unable to function without the bargains. Within a couple of weeks, the excitement had died down and I haven’t heard one word about it since, so I have no idea what the upshot of all this was.
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
The cited clause in Article III applies only to federal cases. The Aaron McKinney case was a state criminal case. Therefor the provision in question is not applicable.
That having been said, it should be noted that the provision in question is a protection for a defendant, not a weapon for the people. That is, you don’t HAVE to try a person who admits to having committed a crime. When that happens, you don’t have a trial, you simply accept (usually) the plea of guilty and sentence accordingly.
It is hard to see how a prosecutor can use plea bargains in a coercive manner. It is far more likely that any inappropriate prosecutorial behaviour would involve charging someone with something that the evidence doesn’t really support, then offering the plea bargain as a way to avoid the potential of a harsher punishment. Of course, any competent defense attorney understands when a prosecutor is over-reaching, and would treat the offer accordingly.
Here’s what I found in the Washington Post about the court’s finding that plea bargains are illegal. I’ll be darned if I can find a writeup of the decision that started it all, but these snippets (the Post charges for the full article, otherwise I’d post links) should give you a good idea of what happened.
[quote]
COURT STAYS LENIENCY RULING
ROBERTO SURO
Saturday, July 11, 1998 ; Page A05
Section: A Section
A federal appeals court in Denver yesterday held up implementation of a controversial decision that forbids prosecutors from promising leniency to witnesses in exchange for their testimony against other criminal defendants, Justice Department officials said. …[\quote]
And, finally, the conclusion to the saga. I must have still been recovering from New Years, because I completely missed this article
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Happens every day. Read your local police reports. Guy gets drunk and punchs somebody. Proper charge is drunk and disorderly and maybe assault. Cops charge him with those plus assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and bad breath in the first degree. They deliverately over charge for stuf they can’t prove to give the prosecutor something to trade away to get the mope to plead out to what they really want.
The real problem with plea bargaining is that prosecutors use it to buy testimony. They have one guy dead bang but they want somebody else worse. They give the first guy a walk and he goes in and swears that the sun comes up in the west and 'dis other dude done it.
JB
Lex Non Favet Delicatorum Votis
AWB
Thanks for explaining that. It looks like I misinterpreted what I read. Funny, it seems clear as day now…
Nothing I write about any person or group should be applied to a larger group.
DSYoung, thanks well said, without the 300/hr. To the last post, when plea bargains are used to “coerce testimony” - a small fraction of total plea bargains already - that testimony is again subject to constitutional and procedural checks on its use.
Any barely competent defense lawyer will step on that right quick, and that type of testimony is almost never used as the solebasis of a subsequent trial anyway, but rather as one element in the proof; or more frequently as a basis for probable cause to go after additional evidence (plea bargainee wears a wire, his statement being one of several Acevedo elements in the pursuit of a warrant or court order… The plea bargain itself is fine, and violates no constitutional guidelines [as opposed to “systems”]. The offer of leniency, interpreted as “buying” information, doesn’t directly violate constitutional rights [which only touch on false witness] but might violate Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which has little bearing on States’ procedures [see DSY’s post]. FRCP is subject to Court instructions, decisions, etc.
In cases where people are falsely accused by testimony, at least as much is by improper “eyewitness” testimony by disinterested third parties as by crooks who cut a plea.
Jorge: Remember the World Trade Center bombing? As I remember it, the “star witness” was one of the terrorists who had plea bargained out of the worst of the charges. Not that I don’t think the cops got the right guys, but I remember thinking that it sounded alot like buying testamony.
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
Yup, but that wasn’t the only evidence at trial… it just sealed up all the other ends. Now I gotta go back and look.
Please allow me to present manhattan’s new quick and easy handbook: How to Exercise Prosecutorial Coercion Using the Plea Bargain Process. The industry and the particulars have been changed to protect the innocent. But it happens not infrequently (fortunately, I hasten to disclose, not to me).
Defendant is accused of doing something stupid and illegal but minor. Say, Failure to Maintain Adequate Maintenance Records at an Airline.
There is no actual evidence that the Maintenance Records were not made out, just that they were lost or misfiled or whatever.
There is evidence, from part numbers and from inspection of the relevant aircraft, that the maintenance was actually done.
Normal penalty for this sort of thing is a $10,000 fine and increased inspections for the next year.
Airline’s Chief Safety Officer made Regulators look stupid at Congressional hearings last year.
Regulators propose imposing maximum fine of $1 MM, a consent decree and replacement of the Chief Safety Officer.
Airline and its executives stupidly choose to appeal the proposed remedy, further angering Regulators, who kick the matter over to Justice.
Prosecutors and Regulators conclude that “If there is one maintenance lapse, there must be others.”
Prosecutors schedule an emergency hearing in Court and Regulators before the FAA, each proposing to revoke Airline’s Flight Certificate, grounding said Airline and placing, oh, 10,000 workers out of a job. The grounding would occur for such period of time as is necessary for inspectors to review the Airline’s entire maintenance record since 1994, back to the statutory limit.
Suggest to Airline, “Well, yea, we might lose. But just so you know, news of the emergency hearings just might appear in the Washington Post next Tuesday. And it just might include a few choice words about your safety record from the Secretary of Transportation. But we’re not sure,”
Choose a crime and propose a penalty. They’ll cave.
The End.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine