Trump attorney struggle sessions have begun
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
I've always found the allocution part of plea deals to be the most insidious. A plea deal is a tactical decision, the government is worried it may lose, so it offers reduced charges or sentencing in exchange for a guaranteed win. The defendant is also afraid they may lose, so they are willing to take a guaranteed lower sentence than risk the potential higher penalty of losing at trial. The terms are based on each side's estimation of its chance of victory. At no point is the person's actual guilt or innocence a factor in either side's decision-making, and everyone knows this.
Yet, after the deal is hammered out, you have to admit in court to doing everything that you pled guilty to. You have to unequivocally state that you committed the crime, describe your guilt in detail, and state that you are in no way admitting to crimes you didn't commit to get a lighter sentence (which is what everyone in the room knows you are actually doing).
And just to make sure you stay on script, the deal isn't official unless it's accepted by the judge after he hears you grovel in front of everyone. He doesn't feel you are sincere enough the whole thing is canceled and you have to go to trial. It almost seems like some sort of ritual out of 1984 or a Kafka novel, calculated to extract the maximum humiliation from the defendant.
If I could change just one thing about the US legal system, it would be to outlaw plea bargains. If you think you have the evidence to convict someone of a crime, then you charge them and go all the way. Otherwise you shut the fuck up and let them go.
Grand juries are proof that the Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on.
Grand juries are actually meant to protect the defendant.
It's a requirement that the prosecution present its case pretty much without challenge to see if they have the evidence to prove everything they allege. The idea being that if you can't convince a jury without the defense poking holes in your case, it's not strong enough to go to trial.
That's the theory. What I have seen in practice is that because the defense has a very limited ability to object, the prosecution will present misleading or easily refuted evidence to the jury in order to secure the indictment. Such evidence can be easily rebutted at trial, but the process is the punishment, and they are effectively circumventing a check and balance to keep the prosecution active.
Other legal systems have a similar screening tool. I believe in Spain they have to present their case to a judge who decides whether or not it has enough merit to move to trial.