The general decline in standards today

[LoveMyHats2]

I've been reading and enjoying these recent posts concerning the judicial system. I've found it instructive seeing what people have to say about their experiences as jurors or witnesses...or just court observers. But I would like for everyone to know that plea bargaining is not illegal in any state...nor is it in the Federal system. It never has been. And yes, it happens all the time.

In my jurisdiction, we dispose of about 55,000 criminal cases per year. That includes every kind of charge from stop sign violations to capital murder. In Craven and Carteret Counties, we have ten, one-week trial terms per year. There are another four trial terms in Pamlico County. So we have twenty four trial terms per year in this district. The shortest jury trial that I’ve ever tried still lasted an entire day, but I would say that even run-of-the-mill jury trials average three or four days. With this in mind, one needn’t be a math major to see that there is no way to try every case charged by Law Enforcement. In order to dispose of cases, they have to be plead. Generally, only the worst cases, with the most deserving defendants, go before juries.

AF

Plea deals, are what takes place when both sides view many factors, and are more than likely carefully weighted out by potential evidence, and a certain degree of probably outcome if the given case would go to trial.

What I state is really not a plea deal. My issues. There is no plea. It is a farce, a sham. It is a meeting of both sides, simply stating to each other, what will make them look better as far as giving "these cases" a guilty and "these cases" a not guilty. You are missing my point, so far. It is pre determined outcome of a case, regardless of a plea, or a complete trial. Can I make that any more clear?

As you know, in any trial, all evidence is either allowed into evidence, or not. A Judge may at any time make a ruling to not allow evidence. Case example:
You are arrested for stealing a watch from a car or residency. It is not a stolen watch. You have a copy of the sales slip from where you purchased the watch, and you know your attorney is going to bring that in to show it was yours. The Attorney has already had a behind the doors meeting with the DA and Judge, and it is discussed in HUMOR to them how they will just merely disallow that sales slip to be entered into evidence. The Judge may use the verbal excuse on record that the crime did not take place in a store, it was in the car or home, thus the slip is not admitted into evidence, because it had nothing to do with the crime... you roast, next case! It happens. I have seen it too many times. That is my point. The defendant had no clue, none!

 

[Atticus Finch]

..The DA and Defense Attorney discussing a case with a Judge, in the Judge's office, off the record, deciding who would be found guilty (again plea or no plea) and who would slide.

Not arguing...I just wish I could figure out how this is done. It would sure save me a great deal of time. I could tell defendants, "Look, I know you've entered a not guilty plea, but your spineless lawyer, the judge and I have talked. We've decided you're gonna be guilty. So why don't you quit whimpering, slip on that orange jumpsuit and crawl into that DOC bus that's just now leaving for Central Prison."

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Not arguing...I just wish I could figure out how this is done. It would sure save me a great deal of time. I could tell defendants, "Look, I know you've entered a not guilty plea, but your spineless lawyer, the judge and I have talked. We've decided you're gonna be guilty. So why don't you quit whimpering, slip on that orange jumpsuit and crawl into that DOC bus that's just now leaving for Central Prison."

AF

This happens as from personal observations by myself, spanning about a five year time period, in two different court systems located in Los Angeles and Oakland County, California. I think in fact, the activity was for "self advancement" of those individual Attorneys, DA's and Judges. The majority of "defendants" involved had no income, had appointed council to represent them and had NO idea what was taking place regarding their case, until it was far too late.

Not knocking what anyone else does for a career, but I would never step back into a courtroom if I have any choices in life to not do so.

 

[jamespowers]

Cowboy boots come two ways...there are "country...and western".....

Sounds like music.

 

[jamespowers]

I wouldn't wear them with a tux, I have with a suit, though.

My three year old does that with his snake skins.

 

[jamespowers]

OH shoot, I forgot about these boots, too. The decline in over all quality if those cowboy boots...you know, they no longer make them out of real cowboys!lol!

In all seriousness, I really miss the old Palace Boot shop. I have a pair of elephant skins that they made years ago for me. I just noticed yesterday that I have to get them resoled---damned hole.:eusa_doh: Anyway, they closed up years ago and that is a sad case for me. They could have resoled them for less than I can get it done locally---and far better. :eusa_doh:

 

[jamespowers]

i was going to ask about the bbq thing with james, but he is off line......hahahahahaha

bbq?

 

[jamespowers]

In my opinion, jury selection is the toughest part of trial practice. Most often, you win or lose your case in jury selection. And jury selection is an art, not a science. The more you do it, the better you get at it...but you never really master it.

Without getting too deeply into the subject, here are a few of my general rules:

1. I don't much care for young jurors. Sorry...but young people generally don't have the life experiences that allow them to separate the wheat from the chafe in a complex trial. Again, this is only a general rule to which there are exceptions.

2. I'm generally hesitant to leave clergy on my juries. They're in the business of forgiveness. I'm in the business of accountability.

3. I like for my jury to be very homogenous. I want them to agree on some verdict...either guilty or not guilty. For me, the only thing worse than a not guilty verdict is a mistrial because of a hung jury. I don't like trying cases twice.

4. I don't like for my jurors to be like the defendant. I don't want them to identify with the defendant.

5. I like educated jurors. I always set my most important trials in June and July. This is because teachers throughout the year are deferred to the June and July terms.

6. I don't like lawyers on my juries...even former prosecutors. They always attempt to retry the case in the jury room.

7. I don't like people who appear to have an agenda on my juries. I don't want my trial to become someone's forum by which to advance their cause.

....there are many other personal guidelines to jury selection that I've developed over the years, but I'll stop with these few.

AF

I just tell them that I am a member of FIJA and I am gone every time.

 

[Pompidou]

Even legitimate "plea bargains" don't seem all that legit to me. They remind me of the witch trials of centuries past. "Just confess and be spared. Proclaim your innocence, and we'll burn you alive." What plea bargains say is, "If you weren't already guilty, we wouldn't have arrested you, naturally. Make this take longer than it has to, and here are the charges we'll add to the list to make sure you regret claiming your right to a fair trial. 20 years, or the chair - your call. Do you still think you're innocent now?"

 

[C-dot]

I am well aware of the terminology of that sort of a procedure.

I know you are, but not everyone reading this is. No harm meant by it.

Even legitimate "plea bargains" don't seem all that legit to me. They remind me of the witch trials of centuries past. "Just confess and be spared. Proclaim your innocence, and we'll burn you alive." What plea bargains say is, "If you weren't already guilty, we wouldn't have arrested you, naturally. Make this take longer than it has to, and here are the charges we'll add to the list to make sure you regret claiming your right to a fair trial. 20 years, or the chair - your call. Do you still think you're innocent now?"

That's all well and dandy, but you're missing a few key details: Firstly, the fact that the accused has the final word. His advocate is there to follow his instructions, and while they can make suggestions, they absolutely cannot change his plea without their informed consent. Secondly, once the case has gone to trial, charges cannot be "added to the list." The police are the ones who lay the charges, the Court system tries them for those charges.

It is not in the best interests of the Prosecution to send someone down, and neither is it in the best interests of defense counsel to allow that to happen. Plea bargains are reached to work out the best possible next step for the accused, and yes, sometimes that includes avoiding a lengthy trial.

 

[Pompidou]

I know you are, but not everyone reading this is. No harm meant by it.



That's all well and dandy, but you're missing a few key details: Firstly, the fact that the accused has the final word. His advocate is there to follow his instructions, and while they can make suggestions, they absolutely cannot change his plea without their informed consent. Secondly, once the case has gone to trial, charges cannot be "added to the list." The police are the ones who lay the charges, the Court system tries them for those charges.

It is not in the best interests of the Prosecution to send someone down, and neither is it in the best interests of defense counsel to allow that to happen. Plea bargains are reached to work out the best possible next step for the accused, and yes, sometimes that includes avoiding a lengthy trial.

That's true in theory, but in practice what it comes down to is the undesirable choice between shooting for complete acquittal and risking the harshest punishment, or guaranteeing a median punishment. The choice isn't made on the basis of guilt or innocence. It's made based on whether or not you think you could "win". There was a news article recently that sparked my opinion on the matter, that feared that prosecutors have been given way too much power as judge, jury and executioner through the ability to plea. I believe charges are either warranted or not, and shouldn't be used as leverage to coerce confessions. In one case, an accused was offered a plea of 5 years, turned it down, then turned down 10 years some time later, and now risks life. If justice is the goal, that's too great a variance. Justice is the goal, not verdicts. After all, landing a guilty plea to get to use your "case closed" stamp and smile to reporters does little good if the actual offender is still on the loose. The guy sitting in jail might be relieved he was only falsely sentenced to 5 years instead of 30, but it's still false.

 

[Atticus Finch]

Even legitimate "plea bargains" don't seem all that legit to me. They remind me of the witch trials of centuries past. "Just confess and be spared. Proclaim your innocence, and we'll burn you alive." What plea bargains say is, "If you weren't already guilty, we wouldn't have arrested you, naturally. Make this take longer than it has to, and here are the charges we'll add to the list to make sure you regret claiming your right to a fair trial. 20 years, or the chair - your call. Do you still think you're innocent now?"

Another way of saying this same thing could be: "Look, we're pretty sure we can convict you in front of a jury and if you're convicted, you'll get forty years. But both you and I know we can only try one case this term of court. If you'll plead guilty to something that will expose you to ten years, we'll dismiss the forty year case. Or you can insist that you're guilty of nothing and you'll be this month's trial. If you win, you win big. If you lose, you lose big...and I do love a high roller. So what's your choice?"

Of course, the important part is that the choice is the defendant's. If he refuses the offer, he doesn't automatically get convicted...or "burned at the stake"...he gets a trial before a jury. That is, he's in the same position as he was before the offer...no worse.

AF

 

[C-dot]

The choice isn't made on the basis of guilt or innocence. It's made based on whether or not you think you could "win".

No, the choice is made based on the best interests of the client, which is what defense counsel is there to do.

People who talk about "the offender running loose" and "justice not being served by crooked lawyers" are ignoring everything that defense counsel does. The Justice system has provisions built into it to protect the accused from something bigger than they are - You don't want to live in a world where you don't have every option and defense open to you against a crime you've been charged with. Think about what would happen if that protection didn't exist, and then tell me the Justice system is crooked.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

bbq?

Yes I have a picture of a certain device used to cook hot dogs, it is well, sort of a metal wire man figure that is made from steel, and the hot dogs are cooked while attached to the front of this device in a "colorful" way, if you will.....(yipes)! hahahah!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I know you are, but not everyone reading this is. No harm meant by it.



That's all well and dandy, but you're missing a few key details: Firstly, the fact that the accused has the final word. His advocate is there to follow his instructions, and while they can make suggestions, they absolutely cannot change his plea without their informed consent. Secondly, once the case has gone to trial, charges cannot be "added to the list." The police are the ones who lay the charges, the Court system tries them for those charges.

It is not in the best interests of the Prosecution to send someone down, and neither is it in the best interests of defense counsel to allow that to happen. Plea bargains are reached to work out the best possible next step for the accused, and yes, sometimes that includes avoiding a lengthy trial.

Please note, you have not ever offended me, I doubt you ever would, too sweet and kind!

 

[jamespowers]

Yes I have a picture of a certain device used to cook hot dogs, it is well, sort of a metal wire man figure that is made from steel, and the hot dogs are cooked while attached to the front of this device in a "colorful" way, if you will.....(yipes)! hahahah!

OH. I think I know what you mean.

 

[Pompidou]

I suppose it's all two sides of the same coin. Some people see plea bargains as dropping charges in return for cooperation. I used to. My perspective changed slightly, and now I see those very same negotiable charges as punishment for opting for the right to a trial by one's peers. I started seeing the glass as half empty, I guess.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

No, the choice is made based on the best interests of the client, which is what defense counsel is there to do.

People who talk about "the offender running loose" and "justice not being served by crooked lawyers" are ignoring everything that defense counsel does. The Justice system has provisions built into it to protect the accused from something bigger than they are - You don't want to live in a world where you don't have every option and defense open to you against a crime you've been charged with. Think about what would happen if that protection didn't exist, and then tell me the Justice system is crooked.

Here is what happens in courts. The Judge wants to get a promotion and his "track record" of being hard on crime helps him get shoved up the ladder, perhaps he wanted to be assigned as what is called, "Master Calendar" judge, which normally pays more.....next up the DA ( normally just an actual assistant) he wants to have a better track record for similar reasons, then next, the appointed defense attorney. He wants to rub elbows with the DA and Judges as he has to deal with them every day, and wants to be able to promote his own financial agenda by going along with the plan of the day. He gets points from both the DA and Judge, and later when he no longer wants to be a low paid appointed counsel, he knows he can count on having deals made with the same two other parties that can help him make money down the road. It is all a motivation of greed, and power.

You as a "client" have no say so when the Judge on your case decides to NOT allow you to enter into evidence something that could prove your not guilty. When your attorney has already explained that out front to the judge and virtually sold you down the river, you had no clue it was done, you were not there to know it. Now your key bit of evidence is not going to be submitted to the court, you have no leg to stand on. You could plea...or go to trial, you will lose that case. It was all worked out long before you went to court for even the very first time. Illegal? Yep. It happens. Too much.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

OH. I think I know what you mean.

So....could that picture get posted or would I be roasted for posting it?

 

[rue]

So....could that picture get posted or would I be roasted for posting it?

Not a good idea Michigan :nono: