Does a victim (or in the case of a homicide, their family) have any recourse for justice if they don’t like the DA’s charing decisions or a plea deal they negotiate? Working towards replacing the DA at the next election doesn’t do anything towards your now-completed case so that doesn’t count. Can one demand the state AG office to take over from the local DA?
Cop killer trial begins today; DA did not go for the death penalty & family us not happy about that decision.
Also heard a news story this weekend where an off-duty cop was arrested for a DUI hit-&-run. His dept has put him on unpaid leave for now. If he’s eventually convicted of all charges he can’t be a cop anymore because he cant gave a gun with a felony conviction; however, if its negotiated to where he pleads to misdemeanors he could potentially be a cop somewhere. If I were the guy lying in a hospital bed in critical condition I’d want as much retribution as possible, including him having to find a new career.
I’ve seen other news stories of charged felonies pled down to misdemeanors & they victim didn’t like the ‘sweetheart’ deal that the criminal pled guilty to. For the DA they get a conviction without the time commitment of a trial, which means they have more time for other cases; a win in their book even if the victim is unhappy about it.
You can sue in civil court. Remember OJ Simpson got off on the murder trial but was sued and got a very big judgement against him (although unfortunately the plaintiffs collected very little).
But one can do that no matter what the charges are / plea is.
Is the victim able to get more money because someone pleads guilty to lesser charges than if they were to be convicted of whatever they were originally charged with?
The actual criminal cases are “State of X vs Accused”, so the prosecution has the right to offer whatever plea they feel is appropriate. They’re not representing the victim or the victim’s family.
The thing to remember the that plea deals are often a compromise intended to see as much justice done as possible. They may have someone dead to rights and they’ll offer a plea deal in hopes of a lesser sentence instead of putting themselves at the mercy of a jury. Or prosecutors may offer one because they’re concerned about the results of a jury and would rather see that guy do ten guaranteed years instead of running a risk that he may get let off the hook instead of the 30 years they’re asking for I a jury trial.
What I usually see, when victims or families are not satisfied, is not that the want justice, but that they want revenge. The system is not set up to provide revenge-- nor even to bring any satisfaction at all to families. It is to answer the needs of justice.
Further to that end, one can try to pull strings with anyone in a position to help with persuading the prosecutor’s office. This option is mostly available to rich people who have influential friends, but occasionally (I suppose) it would be possible for someone with a good story to influence an office-holder with an actual heart.
But if a criminal trial has a higher burden of proof why can’t that be used during a civil trial? Can’t the plaintiff point to the criminal trial and assert some things as proven over and above what is necessary in a civil trial?
Or do they have to re-litigate the whole thing and convince a new jury of what was already proven?
A victim and/or family would not want to see a plea deal because they want the maximum sentence done. However, to be assured of a guilty verdict, you’d need excellent evidence and a strong case, and in addition you’d need it to be a pretty heinous crime for it to warrant a strong sentence.
If you have those elements, that should naturally lead to a strong case in civil court. So, while the accused getting off light does not lead to a better result in a civil trial, if you believe that the prosecutors could have done more in the criminal trial, you can take that same confidence with you into the civil trial.
I’m neither a criminal attorney nor a litigator, so I’m not certain, but I believe that yes, certain issues that were litigated and determined in a criminal case cannot be relitigated in a subsequent civil case (collateral estoppel). I’m not sure on the rules or limits related to that though.
IANAL, but I watched a lot of serious criminal trials in my years as a judge’s assistant. No one in the courtroom is better able (or shouldn’t be better able) to assess what can be actually proved at trial than the prosecutor handling the case. That’s all it is about.
There is nothing more heartbreaking than watching a trial end with a “not guilty” verdict in a serious case that the prosecutor has overcharged. Prosecutors learn quickly – hopefully during their time prosecuting lesser cases – not to do that.
It doesn’t matter if the family believes the defendant deserves the death penalty. If the evidence doesn’t rise to the level of proof required for such a verdict, it’s only an idiot who would overcharge it as a death case.
In a large metro area it’s about getting something. The criminal justice system in many places is overwhelmed. If every defendant demanded a trial the system would collapse. Just as an example, I’m a LEO in Milwaukee County. An Armed Robbery charge might net 3 years even though state statute says 40, while in Washington County to the north it would be multiple times that.
Greater population means more crime means more of an assembly line approach means better deals for the defendant.
Plea bargains are much more the rule than the exception. Something north of 90% of criminal cases in the US are resolved through plea bargaining, rising to 98% in federal cases.
But that wouldn’t help with the situation outlined in the OP, where the state does prosecuted, but the victim or the victim’s family are unhappy with the conduct or outcome of that prosecution. They can’t mount a second, private prosecution; the rule against double jeopardy forbids this.