Prosecutors defend plea agreements

7-31-15 Oregon:

In Oregon, a Clatsop County man was convicted of sexual abuse of a child in the first degree, bribing a witness and tampering with a witness. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail, 60 of which would be served under alternative sanctions.

His case led to a discussion about plea agreements.

The Daily Astorian published a letter from a friend of the convicted man who pointed out that an innocent man was essentially forced to take the plea, and thereby prevented from defending himself against the charges.

I completely understand the horrendous nature of the accusations that were made against him, and the sensitivity that must be exercised in child abuse cases, but these were accusations that Mitchell was never given a fair chance to defend himself against. Any honest attempt to get at the truth of the matter would have involved interviewing the alleged criminal, investigating his background, and speaking with character witnesses. This never happened.

I have no idea if the defendant was guilty or innocent but guilt and innocence too often have little to do with whether a defendant takes the offered plea agreement or not.

The Daily Astorian followed up by publishing a guest column written by Joshua Marquis, the Clatsop County district attorney, and Dawn Buzzard, the senior assistant district attorney, in response to the letter.

Letter: Accusations trump fairness

7-31-15 Oregon:

Jack Harris re Mick Mitchell

I have waited for the justice system to run its course before publicly commenting on the case of Mick Mitchell and the child abuse accusations leveled against him. From the beginning, I have been very disappointed in the unfairness of many of our local institutions.

The district attorney’s office inflated the accusations at every opportunity, originally charging him with crimes that could have resulted in over 300 years of prison. Even after the most serious of the charges were dropped, they continued to use the blunt sledgehammer of a “choice” between the possibility of spending 180 years in prison with a trial, or taking a plea for 60 days of alternative sanctions.

The fact that the district attorney was willing to settle for a couple months over the original 300 years speaks to the weakness of their case. Not once was Mitchell given an opportunity in court to tell his side of the story.

Guest column: Plea negotiation serves a greater good

8-17-15 Oregon:

Like the vast majority of criminal cases of the approximately 1,000 convictions that occur annually in Clatsop County (and elsewhere) the case did not go to trial but was the result of negotiation — what is sometimes called a “plea bargain.”

Late in July a well-known local man, Michel Thomas Mitchell, was sentenced after pleading guilty to charges of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, bribing a witness and tampering with a witness. The victim, who was not identified, was under 12 years old when most of the molestation occurred.

Like the vast majority of criminal cases of the approximately 1,000 convictions that occur annually in Clatsop County (and elsewhere) the case did not go to trial but was the result of negotiation — what is sometimes called a “plea bargain.”

If cases were not negotiated we’d need triple the number of prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges that serve our county’s justice system. Far from being some sleazy “deal” (the headline on the story read “Plea deal reached on sex abuse allegations”) a plea negotiation trades the certainty of a conviction for the state, the finality for the victim, and a known and usually bargained for resolution for the defendant. There is nothing “alleged” about his actions. He stands convicted of three serious felonies, one of which will require him to register as a sex offender.

Overcharging

March 2013:

Abstract:
The prosecutors in several recent high-profile criminal cases have been accused of “overcharging” their quarry. These complaints have implied — and sometimes expressly asserted — that by “overcharging,” the prosecutors engaged in socially undesirable, illegitimate, and even corrupt behavior. United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia also weighed in on the “overcharging” phenomenon not long ago, describing this practice as a predictable though regrettable aspect of modern plea bargaining.

Unfortunately, many of these commentators either have failed to explain precisely what they meant by “overcharging,” or have used the same word to describe different types of charging practices. The various meanings given to “overcharging,” when the term is defined at all, have made it difficult to ascertain what this practice entails, why it is improper, and who the worst offenders are. This essay aims to improve the ongoing conversation about overcharging in two ways: first, by disentangling and fleshing out the core meanings of this term; and second, by proposing and then applying some metrics to identify prosecuting authorities that chronically overcharge. ..Source.. by Kyle Graham, Santa Clara University School of Law