“In courtrooms around the country, more than nine out of every ten defendants surrendered any chance of acquittal, abandoned the constitutional right to a jury trial, and asked courts to enter judgments against them” (Gilchrist, 2016, p. 611). Plea bargaining is a complicated part of the criminal justice system. Negotiations happen before or during a trial and often the exact details of a plea bargain are unknown to anyone beyond those who are directly affected. This system can work to the advantage of criminal defendants and their attorneys, but also can lead to abuses of the system on the part of the defense, each of which I will address in turn. First, from a legal standpoint, the ubiquity of plea bargaining has led to its recognition …show more content…
Defendants take advantage of the plea bargain system in an intriguing manner - by challenging the effectiveness of their own attorneys. In Strickland v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a two-pronged test to describe what it means for counsel to be considered ineffective under the Sixth Amendment. First, the person seeking relief must be able to demonstrate that counsel’s performance was defective. Further, they must prove that the deficiency of counsel directly deprived the defendant of a fair trial (Strickland v. Washington, 1984). The United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense. It gives defendants grounds for suit not only when they are not told about a potential deal, but also when an attorney advises against taking a deal. In Lafler v. Cooper, the Court decided that the …show more content…
Defendants who have more money naturally have access to the best legal counsel and, in turn, better plea negotiators. This puts an unfair disadvantage on defendants who have less money. As noted by Lafontaine (2005), “The cost of legal representation through the process inevitably requires increasingly substantial legal fees simply to navigate the intake procedures. It may well be that, particularly for those defendants unable to qualify for legal aid assistance but with finite resources, the resources consumed by the intake period put the cost of an effective defence at trial beyond their financial reach” (p. 113). The financial pressure of trials for both the defendant and the prosecution is a large motivating factor in the decision to negotiate a plea agreement. That said, the stakes are much higher for those who have less money. Once again, the plea bargaining system tips in the favor of defendants who have more power and wealth, competing with our idealized version of a criminal justice
The trial court denied these motions and the statements were used at trial. The jury found petitioner guilty of murder and was sentence to a 24-year prison term. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he had not “knowingly and intelligently” waived his 6th amendment right to counsel before he gave his uncounseled post indictment
In today's era, when a criminal is charged for various crimes their given a shortcut to justice by simply accepting a plea deal. In this case, Larry Servedio faces multiple felonies: first-degree kidnapping, first-degree rape, third-degree rape, third-degree criminal sexual act, third-degree criminal mischief, criminal impersonation, second-degree grand larceny, and second-degree strangulation. Servedio was also indicted for several misdemeanor charges: first-degree harassment, second-degree aggravated harassment, second-degree menacing and torturing and injuring an animal. If Mr. Servedio goes to trial and is able to prove his innocence of the charges pressed against him, then he is a free man and all charges get dropped. Yet, if Mr. Servedio
Throughout history the United States Supreme Court has upheld laws and even struck them down when it came to the constitutionality of a law. In the case of Strickland v Washington, the Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Amendment and said that the right to counsel means the right to competent counsel and if the attorney is not competent than the result of the trial is invalid. In the cases, starting with Powell vs. Alabama (1932), Johnson vs. Zerbst (1938), and Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963) the Supreme Court has recognized the sixth amendment right to counsel does exists. They stated that it is important for the criminal to have right to counsel to ensure that their fundament right to a fair trial is upheld.
David Feige’s Indefensible: One Lawyer’s Journey nto the Inferno of American Justice invites people from all walks of life to a second hand experience of the criminal justice system hard at work. What is most interesting about Feige’s work is its distinct presentation of the life of a public defender in the South Bronx. Instead of simply detailing out his experiences as a public defender, Feige takes it a step further and includes the experiences of his clients. Without the personal relationships that he carefully constructs with each of his defendants, Feige would not be able to argue that the criminal justice system is flimsy at best, decisions always riding on either the judge’s personal attitudes or the clients propensity towards plea bargaining.
Brian Banks was wrongfully convicted of rape because he chooses to take a plea deal, which was the lesser sentence then spending 41 years in prison. “The plea bargain a prosecutor will strike generally depends on three factors and in this case, the two factors was the seriousness of the offense and the strength of the prosecutor's case” (pg 307). The evidence was mounted against Mr. Banks because they had a key witness, Ms. Wanetta Gibson. Mr. Banks was “not served by the practice of plea bargaining because he was innocent” (pg 308). He “was in fear of being found guilty of a crime he did not commit and receiving a harsh sentence” (pg 208).
A person’s right to have a lawyer and having a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”). Public defenders, or lawyers appointed by the court, provide representation in court without cost to the defendant. Fifty years after the ruling, public attorneys has been under scrutiny by both lawyers and clients. Said counsels are known for facing underfunding and unmanageable caseloads, while their clients claim that they are poorly represented in court.
The decision overturned Betts v. Brady, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” He further wrote that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if
illiteracy, mental illness etc. These circumstances, outlined in an earlier supreme court case Betts v. Brady, stated the state was not required to appoint counsel to the defendant. Unless there were special circumstances or it is a capital offense. Fortunately for Gideon after he appealed to the Supreme Court through a Writ of Habeas Corpus with a petition for Certiorari, a higher court reviews the decision of a lower one. This ruling overturned and today all defendants are granted counsel in all cases except for minor offenses, such as traffic tickets.
Both sides will carefully weigh the strength of their case and decide whether it is prudent to go to trial. The prosecution may also consider the publicity surrounding the case and whether there is public pressure to prosecute that particular defendant to the full extent of the law. The defense will consider the individual defendant’s desire to go to trial and the seriousness of the potential sentence. The Pros of Plea Bargaining
In the Supreme Courts examination, they assessed whether or not the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extended to felony defendant in state courts (Oyez,
Those who support plea bargaining say the greatest benefit of plea bargaining "is the savings in time and expense to the parties, the court, and the public" (Plea Bargaining). Another benefit claimed by those who are in favor of plea bargaining is "that docket pressures are too great and that prosecutors lack the time to pursue all indictments because there are simply too many" (Dever). Plea bargains aren’t perfect, though. In addition to these advantages, there are exploitations in the process that usually harm the defendant. The opponents of plea bargaining state that "the process may result in waivers by defendants of their constitutional rights, unequal representation by counsel, the threat of unequal sentencing, and the possibility that guilty pleas will be entered by innocent defendants" (Plea Bargaining).
Six years later, in Johnson v. Zerbst, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a poor federal criminal defendant who faces serious criminal charges is entitled to an attorney at the expense of the government. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to counsel is thought necessary to protect fundamental human rights of life and liberty and that an average person accused of a crime does not have the professional legal skill to protect himself/herself. Unfortunately, this right only applied to indigent defendants facing serious charges in federal court but did not apply to the states.
The Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and the states’ constitutional or statutory provisions establish the right to a speedy trial of criminal defendants. In particular, the 6th Amendment’s Clause states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” (Susskind, 1993).While the U. S. Constitution does not provide a precise frame of time, states’ laws specify the time within which prosecution must try a defendant. However, the computations are so complex that cases are rarely dismissed on the ground of violation of the speedy trial right (Shestokas, 2014). In fact, ironically defendants have to demand a speedy trial for these time periods to run and their
This is an interesting question to pose because Zurcher can see the inequality in the justice system, especially when it came to the case of Ethan Couch. Rather than allowing this teenage boy to take responsibility for his actions, money ultimately made the decision for him. Couch did wrong by drinking and driving and did even worse when he killed four people. Time and time again, it is shown that those who have money oftentimes come out of the courtroom with better news than those who are not as financially secure. If someone has money, they will be able to pay for the best lawyers out there.
This remarkable courthouse only hosted approximately seven trials in its first year and since then has dropped even lower (Dzur, 2013). The early 20th century was the last time a jury was considered the normal process for dealing with criminal cases, and now the plea deal is king (Dzur, 2013). Simple fact is, today juries hear only a very few cases across the nation (Dzur, 2013). High-ranking members working in the justice system fear that the competence of a jury today is declining with the scientific evidence that is now available (Dzur, 2013). The statistics seem to support this fear.