The judge can refuse to accept the guilty plea.
Don’t know when the last time that actually happened is but IANAL
[quote=“Quercus, post:19, topic:829063”]
Is it possible that someone could plead guilty,
It’s not uncommon.
A judge can refuse a guilty plea for several reasons, including if he believes that the defendant doesn’t understand it, or that it was coerced or its falsely given.
For any of these reasons, a judge can refuse the plea and enter a plea of “not guilty” on the defendant’s behalf.
And then even if the plea is accepted, the judge must decide whether the plea is enough to prove the case and issue a verdict.
Generally police like to withhold certain details about the crime to filter out false confessions. If one person says “I killed her in her house”, and the other one says “I stabbed her six times in the kitchen with a Mozzbi brand serrated steak knife that I threw out as I was leaving the house”, then you know which one did it.
I included the fact that the Judge must accept the plea. The Judge does not, however, have to find that the prosecution has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge must find that you are knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty, and that there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea of guilty.
I agree it is not “automatic,” but I was responding to a post that asked, essentially, “can you plead guilty and then be acquitted?” The way the word “acquitted” is usually used, the answer is no. Not accepting the plea is not an acquittal. Granted, it could lead to a trial, and there could be an acquittal then. (in that case, of course, you never actually pleaded guilty, you merely attempted to)
I say this as someone who has represented 100s, if not 1000s of defendants who have pled guilty (state and federal courts) and has presided over dozens of guilty pleas as a judge pro tem.
It may be very uncommon, but the judge actually has to issue a verdict of guilty. A plea doesn’t force the judge’s hand.
As part of the guilty plea, normally, (IANAL) the defendant must describe what they did and that they admit it freely etc. etc. (Elocution?) If the judge thinks they are not telling the truth, he can refuse to accept the plea. Presumably then, it goes to a trial and the prosecutor must prove the case. That might be easier if the defendant takes the stand and admits they did it.
With two people, the prosecutor has the option of prosecuting either or both. From my extensive Law & Order experience - they would charge the most likely one first, since it’s hard to tell a jury “this guy did it” when the defence can say “you are busy prosecuting someone else and have filed in court arguing that one did it.” And it bolsters the second case if the first one is acquitted - a jury has alerady decided it wasn’t person A. Unless there appears to be a case that they both did it together, then charge them both together. But it doesn’t matter what the defendants say - it takes more than a confession to convict; the facts also have to bear out the case. Plenty of nutbars confess without any actual guilt. I assume it’s a bit of a career-limiting move if a DA decides to toss a guy in jail for life for a prominent crime and it comes out he had no involvement other than mental problems and the ability to watch the news.
if the two are charged with the same crime, generally they are charged together. (There’s a whole separate set of L&O shows on splitting up a trial, but it’s not easy). being charged together, then it’s up to each one whether they want to take the stand and claim the other guy did it. Say two guys come back from a boat trip missing the third guy… one guy may plead guilty, take a much lesser sentence, and testify against the other. Otherwise, they can both argue the other did it and take their chance with the jury, depending on the facts. Who has the bruises from a fight? etc.
In a felony crime that results in a death, all of the parties involved can be charged, and convicted of murder. The guy who did the actual killing, his partner who was present but did not participate in the killing, and the get away driver who sat in the car. Even if they did not know that there was going to be a death.
All three can be charged with murder in the commission of a crime. So it is possible for all of them to be charged and enter a plea. Guilty or not guilty. One killing does not mean one conviction for murder.
I wouldn’t call that a “verdict” of guilty. The judge “accepts the plea and enters a finding of guilt.” Agree that a plea doesn’t force the judge’s hand. I wonder, though, if a defendant wants to plead guilty, could the prosecution say “No, we’d rather put you through a trial.”
For two people to “plead guilty” they would both have to be charged with the crime. I can’t see a scenario where it would ever reach that point. Sure, two people can “confess” to the same crime. But the DA is not going to try both of them in court at the same time. At most, maybe one after the other. But that confession is going to be used as just another piece of evidence before they’re taken in front of a grand jury or otherwise charged with the crime and prosecuted. So, I could see where you might have two confessions, but not two guilty pleas.
I might be missing something, though.
All I am saying is this:
Step 1:
This is the arraignment part of the process.
and then –
Step 2:
This is the adjudication of guilt.
Both things have to happen, and the mere fact that a potential suspect has “admitted” to a crime doesn’t mandate that they will happen. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t think we’re disagreeing here.
I don’t see why they can’t, but I suspect that it will be quite a rare situation in which a prosecutor would make such a choice. It would be more common for a judge to say, “No, you gotta take this to trial.”
We’re not disagreeing.
If the two people are using each other’s confessions to cause ‘reasonable doubt’ for each other, then presumably you could convict them of conspiracy?
In Texas, I believe this is known as the law of parties. I have a childhood friend who is spending life in Texas prison for being the getaway driver. He agreed to participate in the liquor store robbery by driving the car. However, while inside, his buddy shot and killed the store worker. The guy I know never went in the store and never knew about the shooting until it had happened. Sucks to be him.
In Florida it’s just referred to as the Felony Murder Rule.
[Moderating]
Please do not post joke responses in GQ until there have been at least a few posts actually addressing the question. This especially applies when the joke in question is tasteless.
You just answered your own question. They do an investigation and find out which one is lying. Here’s the thing: People offer false confessions all the damned time. In any publicized case you are bound to get a few wackos who show up and ‘confess’ to the crime. There are also many false confessions tendered in the course of interrogations (eg, because the suspect wants to end the interrogation or because they think a plea deal would be better). A competent investigator will examine the facts and decide whether it is plausible for a person to have been the ‘real’ killer.
Hypothetically, it should be impossible for a person to confess to a crime they did not commit. A proper investigation would ask for an explanation of how the crime was perpetrated. If a person is fabricating, they should give incorrect information or omit key details which were not made public. Likewise, when a person pleads guilty to a crime they will be asked to articulate how the crime was perpetrated. If it becomes clear that their story is implausible or contradicts known facts, the judge can discard their guilty plea. I say ‘hypothetically’ because there have been many instances in which the investigators have been willing to accept the first confession that falls into their lap, or they have provided the key details of the case to the suspect so that they can regurgitate it during their confession. Some prosecutors care about getting convictions more than they care about convicting the right person.
Here’s the thing: When a prosecutor goes to trial, they must try to articulate their ‘theory of the crime.’ The prosecutor will have constructed a version of the events based on the available evidence, and there job is to convince the jury that their version of events is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. If Tad takes the stand and unexpectedly confesses to the crime, then the prosecutor must go through the process I described above. Is it plausible that Tad is telling the truth?
But let’s say the jury decides the acquit Bob. Juries do dumb shit like that sometimes. In this case, the answer is: Yes, Tad’s confession could be used as evidence if the prosecutor then attempted to prosecute Tad.
We’re not sure one of them is 100% innocent. That is an unwarranted assumption. One or both is lying. The prosecutor has to look at the evidence, and can charge both of them with the crime if he thinks the evidence supports a conviction. If they continue to repeat their conflicting stories, it will be up to the jury to decide whose version is more believable. The jury can choose to convict one, or both, or neither.
Depends on the law of the jurisdiction. If this happened in Canada, Tad’s confession would be inadmissible in subsequent proceedings, under s. 13 of the Charter.
Not unless you could show they had an agreement to do so. If each of them just says “That other guy’s confessed. I’m innocent!” there’s no conspiracy.
And conspiracy to do what? What is the underlying crime?
Obviously at the very least, obstruction of justice and committing perjury. (If they both agreed Tad would falsely claim on the stand that he dunnit, they are conspiring to commit perjury?)
Presumably, having confessed on the stand, Tad cannot now refuse to answer questions like “OK, where did you get the knife and where did you dispose of it?” and such details which it might be hard for him to have prepared for.
I presume we are talking about two claims of independent action. Bob says “I walking in and shot Joe, never saw Tad”. While Tad says “I shot Joe, Bob was nowhere around.”
If Tad and Bob are in it together, they are jointly charged and could conceivably both be convicted. As I understand it, if two people are charges as being involved in the same specific act, they are charged and tried at the same trial. Depending on circumstances, it is hard to imagine a situation where they argue over who stabbed Joe, or shot him, without also getting into details about how one of them should be innocent of collusion. “I didn’t know my buddy had a gun” isn’t much of a defense when the cops arrive. (Although I imagine we could construct such a case…)
I have read of several cases where the actual murderer confesses and takes a deal to help convict his buddy (or the driver) who then ends up on death row. It’s debatable who cares less about real justice, the prosecutor or the hardened criminal.
I actually didn’t take Senoy’s response as a joke at all, but rather a candid take on the empirical reality on the ground. After all, our “justice” system DOES convict black defendants at much higher rates for similar crimes (and they are up to 7 times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder, warning: PDF at law.umich.edu site).
So in sum, the empirical answers seem to be:
- The black one gets convicted for it
- They’re BOTH put on trial and convicted for it
- If anyone dies in the commission of another crime, including if a trigger-happy cop rushes onto the scene and shoots your friend who later dies, EVERYONE involved in any way whatsoever (except the cop, of course) is put on trial and convicted for it
Which is pretty much what I expected of our system. I’m beginning to think this question and answer may be more interesting in more justice-dispensing justice systems, versus our “hang 'em all and let god sort them out” one.