Plea Bargaining: Major court decision

9-15-15 National:

SANTOBELLO v. NEW YORK 12-20-1971:

I join the opinion of the Court and favor a constitutional rule for this as well as for other pending or oncoming cases. Where the "plea bargain" is not kept by the prosecutor, the sentence must be vacated and the state court will decide in light of the circumstances of each case whether due process requires (a) that there be specific performance of the plea bargain or (b) that the defendant be given the option to go to trial on the original charges. One alternative may do justice in one case, and the other in a different case. In choosing a remedy, however, a court ought to accord a defendant's preference considerable, if not controlling, weight inasmuch as the fundamental rights flouted by a prosecutor's breach of a plea bargain are those of the defendant, not of the State.

NORTH CAROLINA v. ALFORD. 11-23-1970:

Relying on United States v. Jackson, supra, Alford now argues in effect that the State should not have allowed him this choice but should have insisted on proving him guilty of murder in the first degree. The States in their wisdom may take this course by statute or otherwise and may prohibit the practice of accepting pleas to lesser included offenses under any circumstances.12 But this is not the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights. The prohibitions against involuntary or unintelligent pleas should not be relaxed, but neither should an exercise in arid logic render those constitutional guarantees counterproductive and put in jeopardy the very human values they were meant to preserve.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was in error to find Alford's plea of guilty invalid because it was made to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. That court's judgment directing the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Anyone with other good "Plea" cases please chime in and we will post them here.

For now have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

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.