Is it like >99%? I was just reading that the guy who broke into LJ Cool’s home (and got the crap beaten out of him) has entered a plea of not guilty. Now, given that the guy probably has a publicly supplied lawyer, he isn’t caring about the expense…but what is the rational basis for such a plea? I mean, he WAS in the house (ergo, he broke in), he did confront the owner (who beat him up)…so how does he think that he could be found not guilty?
In general, do criminals who plead guilty get less harsh sentences?
PS: If this guy is found not guilty, can he sue LJ Cool for damages?
This early on, close to 100% of criminal defendants charged with felonies plead not guilty. It’s pretty routine for a defendant to enter a plea of not guilty at arraignments or other preliminary hearings, and doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll ultimately take the case all the way to trial. After the defendant’s attorney takes a look at the evidence, evaluates the case against him and works out a possible plea agreement with the DA, he may very well change his plea to guilty, as most criminal defendants do.
IIRC, something like 90% of criminal cases in the US end in a plea bargin. So I’d say “at least that many” are guilty pleas.
The guy in your story is an outlier.
Out of interest the Ohio State Bar Association have a thorough explanation of “not guilty” pleas.
Q: If I know I did it, is it lying to plead not guilty?
A: In the context of our legal system, it is not “dishonest” to enter a not guilty plea even when you know you committed an offense…
Q: What if, as a defendant, I want to admit I was at a crime location like the police say, but I don’t want to admit to doing anything wrong?
A: You would plead not guilty…
Q: What happens if I decide I want to change my not guilty plea?
A: Generally, you may change your plea at any time before a judge enters a final judgment in the case…
Most felons start pleading Not Guilty, then go for plea bargains. There is little reason for the DA to bargain with you if you have already plead guilty.
IANA lawyer but I was under the impression that a “not guilty” plea was not saying “I did not do this” it was saying “prove to a jury I did what you accuse me of”
Plenty of situations unfold where person A kills person B, that he killed him is not in question, the circumstances that change this from murder 1 to manslaughter to self defense are often the key to determining if “this is the crime you committed or none at all”.
I don’t think it is even practically possible to plead guilty at an arraignment (where I live at least). The public defender that is present at the arraignment is not the same at trial - and I think the same for the state here. It is basically a technical proceedure and they set up scheduling, bail issues, and stuff. I don’t think the state would even be prepared to recommend a sentence if someone wanted to plead guilty.
I think 99% of people that take a plea bargin initially pled not guilty at arraignment. An arraignment is very short - a couple minutes.
It’s commonly done for lesser crimes, where the culprit know he can get a decent deal from the judge.
I think this is the case. If you consider the plea to be made in court at trial, then they usually plead guilty in order to get the deal. We could never handle the number of full trials in criminal cases otherwise.
Generally on serious crimes the judge will not take a guilty plea. The assumption is that the defendant has not had enough time to speak to his lawyer and fully understand the charges and consequences. A first appearance is quick and over.
Yes, but I don’t think they are arraigned -if memory serves arraignments are only for felonies.
Not sure. I was arraigned for being assembled illegally, which would have been a misdemeanor if they hadn’t accepted $4 to settle the matter. But I think a lot of people do plead not guilty at an arraignment, then later plead guilty as part of a deal.
In Washington State, all crimes (misdemeanors, gross misdeameanors and felonies) have an arraingment as the first step in the legal process.
I work very closely with our Municipal Court, and approximately 95% of defendants plead not guilty at arraignment.
If the defendant does plead guilty at arraignment, the judge will accept the plea after making sure that the defendant understands what they are doing and what rights they are giving up. If the prosecutor isn’t ready with a sentencing recommendation, sentencing can be set for another date.
Long before trial, almost all cases result in a plea bargain, with the defendant often pleading guilty to a lesser charge or pleading guilty to some charges in exchange for others being dropped.
I got a ticket for having my dog off leash (the peace officers where I love are very bored), and pleaded not guilty, and then lied through my teeth. The administrator/half judge “did not find my account credible,” and I was out $200. Of course, my crime and probable punishment were heinous only to the jerk who gave me the ticket.
Next time I plead guilty and throw myself at the mercy of the court.
As a law student, I’m also curious how a Defendant can legally plead “not guilty” when he in fact knows he is guilty. I could see how a Defendant could refuse to enter a plea and demand a trial, but it seems to me to be perjury to state that you are “not guilty” when you know you are.
Now, enforcement of that law without a mind reading device would be impossible, but what about ethics for an attorney? If I tell my lawyer that I hacked 15 people to death, isn’t he not showing candor and truthfulness to the court by allowing me to plead “not guilty”?
This is from Irish rather than US experience, though I’d imagine it might be the same - often defendants initially plead not guilty simply as a delaying mechanism, because they want to be out on bail for a particular event or to allow them get drug/alcohol treatment before they start serving a sentence. In these cases they fully intend to plead guilty before the case actually goes to trial, they just don’t want to do it now. It’s perfectly allowable and by no means is it perjury - a defendant is entitled to take a trial date and require the state to prove its case. The downside is that when it comes to sentencing, they lose the mitigating factor of an early guilty plea.
IANAL, but that’s an easy one. It’s because a ‘not guilty’ plea is not a claim that you are innocent, it’s essentially a claim of what you believe the result of a trial will be. You are claiming that you believe a jury will return a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
Interesting. In New Zealand 90% of defendants plead guilty after a couple of weeks or so. Bear in mind that most charges are for drunk driving, minor assault, burglary, receiving stolen property…very small time stuff and not what you see on the TV dramas. These crimes are what make up the bulk of a courts daily work.
Of the Not Guilty pleas for the remaining 10% I think 60% are acquitted. Which is 6% of all defendants charged.
A plea in court is not a factual statement; it is a plea on a legal issue. By pleading “not guilty” the accused is requiring the prosecution to prove the case. It is the combination of facts and law that together go to determine if the person is guilty or nor guilty. For instance, even if the accused did in fact kill 15 other people, the accused might not be found guilty - it could be insanity; it could be that the accused has already been tried on the charge and jeopardy attached; it could be that the evidence is tainted by the actions of the police and is not admissible.
The lawyer’s role is to advise the Court of the position his/her client is taking in respect of the charge. Since that is a legal plea, not a factual issue, the lawyer is not in breach of his/her ethical duties to the Court.
This is why most people have trouble with “the Law”. You are in effect saying "I am guilty, but because the lawyer is not bound to be truthful, I can claim to be “not guilty”. The lawyer is not behaving unethically, because guilt or non-guilt is irrelevant-it is the legal procedure that is important.