The plea bargain (also plea agreement or plea deal) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty or nolo contendere to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.
A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge. For example, in the U.S. legal system, a criminal defendant charged with a felony theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor theft charge, which may not carry a custodial sentence.
In cases such as an automobile collision when there is a potential for civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead no contest or "guilty with a civil reservation", which essentially is a guilty plea without admitting civil liability.
Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to defense attorneys, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients. However, defense attorneys are required by the ethics of the bar to defend the present client's interests over the interests of others. Violation of this rule may result in disciplinary sanctions being imposed against the defense attorney by the appropriate state's bar association.
In charge bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge. In count bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges. In sentence bargaining, they plead guilty agreeing in advance what sentence will be given; however, this sentence can still be denied by the judge. In fact bargaining, defendants plead guilty but the prosecutor agrees to stipulate (i.e., to affirm or concede) certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished under the sentencing guidelines.
Plea bargaining has been defended as a voluntary exchange that leaves both parties better off, in that defendants have many procedural and substantive rights, but by pleading guilty, defendants "sell" these rights to the prosecutor. For a defendant who believes that conviction is almost certain, a discount to the sentence is more useful than an unlikely chance of acquittal. For the prosecutor, it means that a conviction is guaranteed. By allowing a quicker trial, it saves money and resources for the courts and prosecutors. It also means that victims and witnesses do not have to testify at the trial, which in some cases can be traumatic.
Plea bargaining is criticized, particularly outside the United States, on the grounds that its close relationship with rewards, threats and coercion potentially endanger the correct legal outcome.
Author Martin Yant discusses the use of coercion in plea bargaining:
Even when the charges are more serious, prosecutors often can still bluff defense attorneys and their clients into pleading guilty to a lesser offense. As a result, people who might have been acquitted because of lack of evidence, but also who are in fact truly innocent, will often plead guilty to the charge. Why? In a word, fear. And the more numerous and serious the charges, studies have shown, the greater the fear. That explains why prosecutors sometimes seem to file every charge imaginable against defendants.
This tactic is prohibited in some other countries—for example in the United Kingdom the prosecutor's code states:
Prosecutors should never go ahead with more charges than are necessary just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a few. In the same way, they should never go ahead with a more serious charge just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a less serious one.
although it adds that in some kinds of complex cases such as major fraud trials:
The over-riding duty of the prosecutor is ... to see that justice is done. The procedures must command public and judicial confidence. Many defendants in serious and complex fraud cases are represented by solicitors experienced in commercial litigation, including negotiation. This means that the defendant is usually protected from being put under improper pressure to plead. The main danger to be guarded against in these cases is that the prosecutor is persuaded to agree to a plea or a basis that is not in the public interest and interests of justice because it does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending ... Any plea agreement must reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending and give the court adequate sentencing powers. It must consider the impact of an agreement on victims and also the wider public, whilst respecting the rights of defendants.
There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.
Theoretical work based on the prisoner's dilemma is one reason that, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the prisoner's dilemma scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other suspect, irrespective of the innocence of the accused. Arguably, the worst case is when only one party is guilty: here, the innocent one has no incentive to confess, while the guilty one has a strong incentive to confess and give testimony (including false testimony) against the innocent.
A 2009 study by the European Association of Law and Economics observed that innocent defendants are consistently more likely than guilty defendants to reject otherwise-favorable pleas proposals, even when theoretically disadvantageous to do so, because of perceived unfairness, and would do so even if the expected sanction would be worse if they proceeded to trial. The study concluded that "[t]his somewhat counterintuitive 'cost of innocence', where the preferences of innocents lead them collectively to fare worse than their guilty counterparts, is further increased by the practice of imposing much harsher sentences at trial on defendants who contest the charges. This 'trial penalty' seeks to facilitate guilty pleas by guilty defendants [...and ironically...] disproportionately, collectively, penalizes innocents, who reject on fairness grounds some offers their guilty counterparts accept."
The extent to which innocent people will accept a plea bargain and plead guilty is contentious and has been subjected to considerable research. Much research has focused on the relatively few actual cases where innocence was subsequently proven, such as successful appeals for murder and rape based upon DNA evidence, which tend to be atypical of trials as a whole (being by their nature only the most serious kinds of crime). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and asking what choice they would make. More recently some studies have attempted to examine actual reactions of innocent persons generally, when faced with actual plea bargain decisions. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a real-life controlled plea bargain situation, rather than merely asking theoretical responses to a theoretical situation—a common approach in previous research. It placed subjects in a situation where an accusation of academic fraud (cheating) could be made, of which some subjects were in fact by design actually guilty (and knew this), and some were innocent but faced seemingly strong evidence of guilt and no verifiable proof of innocence. Each subject was presented with the evidence of guilt and offered a choice between facing an academic ethics board and potentially a heavy penalty in terms of extra courses and other forfeits, or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter "sentence". The study found that as expected from court statistics, around 90% of accused subjects who were actually guilty chose to take the plea-bargain and plead guilty. It also found that around 56% of subjects who were actually innocent (and privately knew it) also to take the plea-bargain and plead guilty, for reasons including avoiding formal quasi-legal processes, uncertainty, possibility of greater harm to personal future plans, or deprivation of home environment due to remedial courses. The authors stated:
Previous research has argued that the innocence problem is minimal because defendants are risk-prone and willing to defend themselves before a tribunal. Our research, however, demonstrates that when study participants are placed in real, rather than hypothetical, bargaining situations and are presented with accurate information regarding their statistical probability of success, just as they might be so informed by their attorney or the government during a criminal plea negotiation, innocent defendants are highly risk-averse.
More pressure to plea bargain may be applied in weak cases (where there is less certainty of both guilt and jury conviction) than strong cases. Prosecutors tend to be strongly motivated by conviction rates, and "there are many indications that prosecutors are willing to go a long way to avoid losing cases, [and that] when prosecutors decide to proceed with such weak cases they are often willing to go a long way to assure that a plea bargain is struck". Prosecutors often have great power to procure a desired level of incentive, as they select the charges to be presented. For this reason,
[P]lea bargains are just as likely in strong and weak cases. Prosecutors only need to adjust the offer to the probability of conviction in order to reach an agreement. Thus, weaker cases result in more lenient plea bargains, and stronger ones in relative harshness, but both result in an agreement. [... W]hen the case is weak, the parties must rely on charge bargaining ... But [charge bargaining] is hardly an obstacle. Charge bargaining in weak cases is not the exception; it is the norm all around the country. Thus, even if the evidence against innocent defendants is, on average, weaker, the likelihood of plea bargains is not dependent on guilt.
Another situation in which an innocent defendant may plead guilty is in the case of a defendant who cannot raise bail, and who is being held in custody in a jail or detention facility. Because it may take months, or even years, for criminal cases to come to trial or even indictment in some jurisdictions, an innocent defendant who is offered a plea bargain that includes a sentence of less time than he would otherwise spend in jail awaiting an indictment or a trial may choose to accept the plea arrangement and plead guilty.
Agency problems sometimes arise in plea bargaining in that although the prosecutor represents the people and the defense attorney represents the defendant, these agents' goals may be far from congruent with those of their principals. Moreover, prosecutors and defense attorneys often view each other as colleagues and generally wish to maintain good relations with one another. A defense attorney often receives a flat fee or in any event will not receive enough additional money if he goes to trial to cover the costs of doing so; this can create an incentive to plea bargain, even at the expense of the defense attorney's client's interests.
On the other hand, the prosecutor may wish to maintain a high conviction rate and avoid losing high-profile trials; thus, settling a case by plea bargain may further his interests, even if the resulting sentence would not effectively deter crime. As many crimes have very narrow sentencing bands, a prosecutor often has scope to propose whatever degree of "discounted" charges, or substitution of misdemeanor rather than felony charges, to whatever extent they believe would incentivise a defendant to make a guilty plea and accept a speedy conviction, regardless of actual guilt.
Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending the defendant away to prison for 10 years, he may make a plea agreement for a sentence of one year; but if plea bargaining is unavailable, a prosecutor may drop the case completely.
Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority (roughly 90%) of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts. A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who accept responsibility by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case; this usually amounts to a complete sentence reduction had they gone to trial and lost.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, however, binds the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
Plea bargains are so common in the Superior Courts of California (the general trial courts) that the Judicial Council of California has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisements required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements.
Certain aspects of the American justice system serve to promote plea bargaining. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system puts judges in a passive role, in which they have no independent access to information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The prosecutor and defense may thus control the outcome of a case through plea bargaining. The court must approve a plea bargain as being within the interests of justice.
The lack of compulsory prosecution also gives prosecutors greater discretion as well as the inability of crime victims to mount a private prosecution and their limited ability to influence plea agreements. Defendants who are held in custody—who either do not have the right to bail or cannot afford bail, or who do not qualify for release on their own recognizance—may get out of jail immediately following the judge’s acceptance of a plea.
Generally, once a plea bargain is made and accepted by the courts, the matter is final and cannot be appealed. However, a defendant may withdraw his plea for certain legal reasons, and a defendant may agree to a "conditional" plea bargain, whereby s/he pleads guilty and accepts a sentence, but reserves the right to appeal a specific matter (such as violation of a constitutional right). If the defendant does not win on appeal the agreement is carried out; if the defendant is successful on appeal the bargain is terminated. The defendant in Doggett v. United States made such a bargain, reserving the right to appeal solely on the grounds that he was not given a speedy trial as required by the United States Constitution; Doggett's claim was upheld by the United States Supreme Court and he was freed.
In Canada, the courts always have the final say with regard to sentencing. Nevertheless, plea bargaining has become an accepted part of the criminal justice system although judges and Crown attorneys are often reluctant to refer to it as such. In most Canadian criminal proceedings, the Crown has the ability to recommend a lighter sentence than it would seek following a guilty verdict in exchange for a guilty plea.
Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown can also agree to withdraw some charges against the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea. This has become standard procedure for certain offences such as impaired driving. Note that in the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed summarily or by indictment prior to the defendant making his or her plea. If the Crown elects to proceed summarily and the defendant then pleads not guilty, the Crown cannot change its election. Therefore, the Crown is not in a position to offer to proceed summarily in exchange for a guilty plea.
Canadian judges are not bound by the Crown's sentencing recommendations and could impose harsher (or more lenient) penalties. Therefore, the Crown and the defence will often make a joint submission with respect to sentencing. While a joint submission can entail both the Crown and defence recommending exactly the same disposition of a case, this is not common except in cases that are sufficiently minor that the Crown is willing to recommend a discharge. In more serious cases, a joint submission normally call for a sentence within relatively narrow range, with the Crown arguing for a sentence at the upper end of the range and the defence arguing for a sentence at the lower end, so as to maintain the visibility of the judge's ability to exercise discretion.
Judges are not bound to impose a sentence within the range of a joint submission, and a judge's disregard for a joint submission is not in itself grounds for the sentence to be altered on appeal. However, if a judge routinely disregards joint submissions, that judge would compromise the ability of the Crown to offer meaningful incentives for defendants to plead guilty. Defence lawyers would become reluctant to enter into joint submissions if they were thought to be of little value with a particular judge, which would thus result in otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will normally impose a sentence within the range of any joint submission.
Following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that imposes strict time limits on the resolution of criminal cases (eighteen months for cases in provincial court and thirty months for cases in Superior Court), several provinces have initiated and/or intensified measures intended to maximize the number of minor criminal cases resolved by a plea bargain.
Largely unique to the Canadian justice system is that further negotiations concerning the final disposition of a criminal case may also arise even after a sentence has been passed. This is because in Canada the Crown has (by common law standards) a very broad right to appeal acquittals, and also a right to appeal for harsher sentences except in cases where the sentence imposed was maximum allowed. Therefore, in Canada, after sentencing the defence sometimes has an incentive to try and persuade the Crown to not appeal a case, in exchange for the defence also declining to appeal. While, strictly speaking, this is not plea bargaining, it is done for largely the same reasons.
Plea bargaining is permitted in the legal system of England and Wales. The guidelines by the Sentencing Council require that the discount it gives to the sentence are determined by the timing of the plea and no other factors. The guidelines state that the earlier the guilty plea is entered, the greater the discount to the sentence. The maximum discount permitted is one third, for a plea entered at the earliest stage. There is no minimum discount; a guilty plea entered on the first proper day of the trial would be expected provide a discount of one tenth. The discount can sometimes involve changing the type of punishment, such as substituting a prison sentence for community service.
Plea bargaining in Magistrates' Court trials is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defence can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. However, although this is not conducting a plea bargain, in cases before the Crown Court, the defence can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty.
In the case of hybrid offences in England and Wales, the decision whether to deal with a case in Magistrates Court or Crown Court is not made by magistrates until after a plea has been entered. A defendant is thus unable to plead guilty in exchange for having a case dealt with in Magistrates' Court (which has lesser sentencing powers).
Plea bargaining was introduced in India by The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced a new chapter XXI(A) in the code, enforceable from July 5, 2006. It allows plea bargaining for cases in which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for 7 years; however, offenses affecting the socio-economic condition of the country and offenses committed against a woman or a child below 14 are excluded.
In 2007, Sakharam Bandekar case became the first such case in India where the accused Sakharam Bandekar requested lesser punishment in return for confessing to his crime (using plea bargaining). However, the court rejected his plea and accepted CBI's argument that the accused was facing serious charges of corruption. Finally, the court convicted Bandekar and sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment.
Plea bargain as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law. A special feature of this plea bargain is that the accused applies for it, accepting guilt, and offers to return the proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators/prosecutors. After an endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau, the request is presented before the court, which decides whether it should be accepted or not. If the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands convicted but neither is sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. The accused is disqualified to take part in elections, hold any public office, or obtain a loan from any bank; the accused is also dismissed from service if a government official.
In other cases, formal plea bargains in Pakistan are limited, but the prosecutor has the authority to drop a case or a charge in a case and, in practice, often does so, in return for a defendant pleading guilty on some lesser charge. No bargaining takes place over the penalty, which is the court's sole privilege.
In some common law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the Australian state of Victoria, plea bargaining is practiced only to the extent that the prosecution and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and/or to reduced charges in exchange for the prosecutor withdrawing the remaining and/or more serious charges. In New South Wales, a 10-25% discount on the sentence is customarily given in exchange for an early guilty plea, but this concession is expected to be granted by the judge as a way of recognizing the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea to the justice system - it is never negotiated with a prosecutor. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place between the prosecution and the defence over criminal penalties.
Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses; a confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also, unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for plea bargaining.
In 2013 Brazil passed a law allowing plea bargains, which have been used in the political corruption trials taking place since then.
In China, a plea bargaining pilot scheme has been introduced by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 2016. For defendants that faces jail terms of three years or below, agrees to plea guilty voluntarily and agree with prosecutors' crime and sentencing proposals, will be given mitigated punishments.
In 2009, in a case about whether witness testimony originating from a plea deal in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal trial (297/2008 H), the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Højesteret) unanimously ruled that plea bargains are prima facie not legal under Danish law, but that the witnesses in the particular case would be allowed to testify regardless (with the caveat that the lower court consider the possibility that the testimony was untrue or at least influenced by the benefits of the plea bargain). The Supreme Court did however point out that Danish law contains mechanisms similar to plea bargains, such as § 82, nr. 10 of the Danish Penal Code (Danish: Straffeloven) which states that a sentence may be reduced if the perpetrator of a crime provides information that helps solve a crime perpetrated by others, or § 23 a of the Danish Competition Law (Danish: Konkurrenceloven) which states that someone can apply to avoid being fined or prosecuted for participating in a cartel if they provide information about the cartel that the authorities did not know at the time.
If a defendant admits to having committed a crime, the prosecution doesn't have to file charges against them, and the case can be heard as a so-called "admission case" (Danish: tilståelsessag) under § 831 of the Law on the Administration of Justice (Danish: Retsplejeloven) provided that: the confession is supported by other pieces of evidence (meaning that a confession is not enough to convict someone on its own); both the defendant and the prosecutor consent to it; the court does not have any objections; §§ 68, 69, 70 and 73 of the Penal Code do not apply to the case.[a]
In Estonia, plea bargaining was introduced in the 1990s: the penalty is reduced in exchange for confession and avoiding most of the court proceedings. Plea bargaining is permitted for the crimes punishable by no more than four years of imprisonment. Normally, a 25% reduction of the penalty is given.
The introduction of a limited form of plea bargaining (comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité or CRPC, often summarized as plaider coupable) in 2004 was highly controversial in France. In this system, the public prosecutor could propose to suspects of relatively minor crimes a penalty not exceeding one year in prison; the deal, if accepted, had to be accepted by a judge. Opponents, usually lawyers and leftist political parties, argued that plea bargaining would greatly infringe on the rights of defense, the long-standing constitutional right of presumption of innocence, the rights of suspects in police custody, and the right to a fair trial.
For instance, Robert Badinter argued that plea bargaining would give too much power to the public prosecutor and would encourage defendants to accept a sentence only to avoid the risk of a bigger sentence in a trial, even if they did not really deserve it. Only a minority of criminal cases are settled by that method: in 2009, 77,500 out of the 673,700 or 11.5% of the decisions by the correctional courts.
Plea bargaining (Georgian: საპროცესო შეთანხმება, literally "plea agreement") was introduced in Georgia in 2004. The substance of the Georgian plea bargaining is similar to the United States and other common law jurisdictions.
A plea bargaining, also called a plea agreement or negotiated plea, is an alternative and consensual way of criminal case settlement. A plea agreement means settlement of case without main hearing when the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or for a more lenient sentence and/or for dismissal of certain related charges. (Article 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
The main principle of the plea bargaining is that it must be based on the free will of the defendant, equality of the parties and advanced protection of the rights of the defendant:
a) In order to avoid fraud of the defendant or insufficient consideration of his/her interests, legislation foresees obligatory participation of the defense council; (Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
b) The defendant has the right to reject the plea agreement on any stage of the criminal proceedings before the court renders the judgment. (Article 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
c) In case of refusal, it is prohibited to use information provided by the defendant under the plea agreement against him in the future. (Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
d) The defendant has the right to appeal the judgment rendered consequent to the plea agreement if the plea agreement was concluded by deception, coercion, violence, threat, or violence. (Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
While concluding the plea agreement, the prosecutor is obliged to take into consideration public interest, severity of the penalty, and personal characteristics of the defendant. (Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia) To avoid abuse of powers, legislation foresees written consent of the supervisory prosecutor as necessary precondition to conclude plea agreement and to amend its provisions. (Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
Plea agreement without the approval of the court doesn’t have the legal effect. The court must satisfy itself that the plea agreement is concluded on the basis of the free will of the defendant, that the defendant fully acknowledges the essence of the plea agreement and its consequences. (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
Guilty plea of the defendant is not enough to render guilty judgment. (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia) Consequently, court is obliged to discuss 2 important issues:
a) Whether irrefutable evidence is presented which proves the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
b) Whether sentence provided for in the plea agreement is legitimate. (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia) After both criteria are satisfied the court additionally checks whether formalities related to the legislative requirements are followed and only then makes decision.
If the court finds that presented evidence is not sufficient to support the charges or that a motion to render a judgment without substantial consideration of a case is submitted in violation of the requirements stipulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, it shall return the case to the prosecution. The court before returning the case to the prosecutor offers the parties to change the terms of the agreement. If the changed terms do not satisfy the court, then it shall return the case to the prosecution. (Article 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
If the court satisfies itself that the defendant fully acknowledges the consequences of the plea agreement, and he/she was represented by the defense council, his/her will is expressed in full compliance with the legislative requirements without deception and coercion, also if there is enough body of doubtless evidence for the conviction and the agreement is reached on legitimate sentence - the court approves the plea agreement and renders guilty judgment. If any of the abovementioned requirements are not satisfied, the court rejects to approve the plea agreement and returns the case to the prosecutor. (Article 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
The plea agreement is concluded between the parties - the prosecutor and the defendant. Notwithstanding the fact that the victim is not party to the criminal case and the prosecutor is not a tool in the hands of the victim to obtain revenge against the offender, the attitude of the victim in relation to the plea agreement is still important.
Under Article 217 of the Criminal procedure Code of Georgia, the prosecutor is obliged to consult with the victim prior to concluding the plea agreement and inform him/her about this. In addition, under the Guidelines of the Prosecution Service of Georgia, the prosecutor is obliged to take into consideration the interests of the victim and as a rule conclude the plea agreement after the damage is compensated.
Italy has a form of bargaining, popularly known as "patteggiamento" but that has a technical name of penalty application under request of the parts. In fact, the bargaining is not about the charges, but about the penalty applied in sentence, reduced up to one third.
When the defendant deems that the punishment that would, concretely, be handed down is less than a five-year imprisonment (or that it would just be a fine), the defendant may request to plea bargain with the prosecutor. The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence and has other advantages (such as that the defendant does not pay the fees on the proceeding). The defendant must accept the penalty for the charges (even if the plea-bargained sentence has some particular matters in further compensation proceedings), no matter how serious the charges are.
Sometimes, the prosecutor agrees to reduce a charge or to drop some of multiple charges in exchange for the defendant's acceptance of the penalty. Defendant, in the request, could argue with the penalty and aggravating and extenuating circumstancing with the prosecutor, that can accept or refuse. The request could also be made by the prosecutor. The plea bargaining could be granted if the penalty that could be concretely applied is, after the reduction of one third, inferior to five-year imprisonment (so called "patteggiamento allargato", wide bargaining); When the penalty applied, after the reduction of one third, is inferior of two years imprisonment or is only a fine (so called "patteggiamento ristretto" limited bargaining), the defendant can have other advantages, like sentence suspended and the effacement of the crime if in five year of the sentence, the defendant doesn't commit a similar crime.
In the request, when it could be applied the conditional suspension of the penalty according to the article 163 and following of Italian penal code, the defendant could subordinate the request to the grant of the suspension; if the judge rejects the suspension, the bargaining is refused. When both the prosecutor and the defendant have come to an agreement, the proposal is submitted to the judge, who can refuse or accept the plea bargaining.
According to Italian law, a bargain doesn't need a guilty plea (in Italy there is no plea declaration); for this reason, a bargaining sentence is only an acceptance of the penalty in exchange with the stop of investigation and trial and has no binding cogency in other trials, especially in civil trials in which parts argue of the same facts at the effects of civil liability and in other criminal trials in which are processed the accomplices of the defendant that had requested and got a bargaining sentence.
Poland also adopted a limited form of plea bargaining, which is applicable only to minor felonies (punishable by no more than 10 years of imprisonment). The procedure is called “voluntary submission to a penalty” and allows the court to pass an agreed sentence without reviewing the evidence, which significantly shortens the trial. There are some specific conditions that have to be simultaneously met:
However, the court may object to the terms of proposed plea agreement (even if already agreed between the defendant, victim and prosecutor) and suggest changes (not specific but rather general). If the defendant accepts these suggestions and changes his penalty proposition, the court approves it and passes the verdict according to the plea agreement. In spite of the agreement, all the parties of the trial: prosecution, defendant and the victim as an auxiliary prosecutor (in Poland, the victim may declare that he wants to act as an "auxiliary prosecutor" and consequently gains the rights similar to official prosecutor) - have the right to appeal.
Plea bargaining was introduced in Japan in June 2018. The first case of plea bargaining under this system, in July 2018, involved allegations of bribery by Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems in Thailand. The second case was a November 2018 deal to obtain evidence of accounting and securities law violations against Nissan executives Carlos Ghosn and Greg Kelly.
Under the Japanese system, formally known as the "mutual consultation and agreement system" (協議・合意制度 kyogi-goi seido), plea bargaining is available in prosecutions for organized crime, competition law violations, and economic crimes such as securities law violations. The prosecutor, defendant, and defense counsel each sign a written agreement, which must then be admitted into evidence in a public court without delay.
The 2011 Italian football scandal emerged on 1 June 2011 after a number of football-related figures were arrested, or made under official scrutiny, by Italian police for alleged match fixing. The list included also well-known figures as former Italian international footballer Giuseppe Signori, as well as former Serie A players Mauro Bressan, Stefano Bettarini and Atalanta veteran striker Cristiano Doni. The group was accused of having fixed a wide range of Serie B, Lega Pro Prima Divisione and Lega Pro Seconda Divisione games.
The inquiry started following a denunciation from Lega Pro Prima Divisione club Cremonese, instigated by internal suspicions involving first team goalkeeper Marco Paoloni, who was successively sold to Benevento in January 2011.Ameer Makhoul
Ameer Makhoul (Arabic: أمير مخول, Hebrew: אמיר מח'ול) is a Palestinian Christian citizen of Israel and the director of the Haifa-based Ittijah, the Union of Arab Community-Based Associations.In 2010, Makhoul was arrested on charges of espionage. He admitted to the spying charge as part of a plea bargain, was convicted and sentenced to 9 years in prison.Bam Morris
Byron "Bam" Morris (born January 13, 1972) is a former American football running back who played for the Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Bears, Baltimore Ravens, and the Kansas City Chiefs.Commonwealth's attorney
Commonwealth's attorney is the title given to the elected prosecutor of felony crimes in Kentucky and Virginia. Other states refer to similar prosecutors as district attorney or state's attorney.
The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case against an individual suspected of breaking the law, initiating and directing further criminal investigations, guiding and recommending the sentencing of offenders, and are the only attorneys allowed to participate in grand jury proceedings.A commonwealth's attorney is the highest law enforcement official in his or her jurisdiction and in many jurisdictions supervises a staff which includes a chief deputy commonwealth's attorney, deputy commonwealth's attorneys and assistant commonwealth's attorneys. The prosecutors decide what criminal charges to bring, and when and where a person will answer to those charges. In carrying out their duties, prosecutors have the authority to investigate persons, grant immunity to witnesses and accused criminals, and plea bargain with defendants.A commonwealth's attorney is a constitutional officer, which means that the job is established in the state's constitution which defines the position, the broad powers of the elected officeholder and in Virginia, the requirement that every county and every city be served by a commonwealth's attorney. Certain cities in Kentucky and cities in Virginia are independent jurisdictions (hence the term "independent city," a designation conceptually similar to that of cities having imperial immediacy under the Holy Roman Empire) and not part of any county.
The role of commonwealth's attorneys, district attorneys, and state's attorneys should not be confused with the role of a county attorney or city attorney whose authority is usually limited by individual state constitutions to non-felony infractions or misdemeanor cases.
Commonwealth's attorneys are elected in their respective jurisdictions in both Virginia and Kentucky for terms of four years and six years, respectively.Donald Keyser
Donald W. Keyser (born 17 July 1943) retired from the United States Department of State in September 2004 after a 32-year career. He had been a member of the Senior Foreign Service since 1990, and held Washington-based ambassadorial-level assignments 1998-2004. Throughout his career he focused on U.S. policy toward East Asia, particularly China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and the Korean Peninsula.
Keyser attended the University of Maryland, the Stanford Inter-University Center in Taiwan, George Washington University, and the National War College. He joined the State Department in 1972, and has held a number of senior posts relating to East Asian affairs. He is fluent in Chinese.
In 2005, he pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of secret documents, and to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding his sexual relationship with a Taiwanese intelligence officer, Isabelle Cheng. He denied, however, passing any confidential information to Cheng, and entered into a plea bargain arrangement — in exchange for prosecutors dropping espionage charges, he would co-operate fully in their investigations. In 2006, prosecutors sought to void the plea bargain, claiming that Keyser had not fulfilled his part of the deal, but they later reversed this position, saying that Keyser had increased his level of co-operation. In January 2007, Keyser was sentenced for the original charges of possessing secret documents and lying to investigators — he served one year and one day in jail, and was fined $25,000.Gary Ridgway
Gary Leon Ridgway (born February 18, 1949), also known as the Green River Killer, is an American serial killer. He was initially convicted of 48 separate murders. As part of his plea bargain, another conviction was added, bringing the total number of convictions to 49, making him the most prolific serial killer in United States history according to confirmed murders. He killed a myriad of teenage girls and women in the state of Washington during the 1980s and 1990s.Most of Ridgway's victims were alleged to be sex workers and other women in vulnerable circumstances, including underage runaways. The press gave him his nickname after the first five victims were found in the Green River before his identity was known. He strangled his victims, usually by hand but sometimes using ligatures. After strangling them, he would dump their bodies in forested and overgrown areas in King County, often returning to the bodies to have sexual intercourse with them.On November 30, 2001, as Ridgway was leaving the Kenworth truck factory where he worked in Renton, Washington, he was arrested for the murders of four women whose cases were linked to him through DNA evidence. As part of a plea bargain wherein he agreed to disclose the locations of still-missing women, he was spared the death penalty and received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.Howard H. Shore
Howard H. Shore is a Superior Court Judge of San Diego County, California for Department SD-15. Shore's remarks were widely covered by the media after he announced that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to chalk on the sidewalk, and he prohibited the defendant from mentioning terms like "First Amendment" or "free speech" during the trial.Juan David Ochoa Vásquez
Juan David Ochoa Vásquez (c. 1949 – 25 July 2013) was a Colombian drug trafficker and one of the founders of the Medellín Cartel, a major drug trafficking cartel based in the city of Medellín.Juan David was the elder brother of Jorge Luis and Fabio Ochoa Vásquez, powerful figures inside the Medellín Cartel.In January 1991, Juan David Ochoa Vásquez, together with his brother Jorge Luis, turned themselves in to the Colombian government in order to receive the benefits of collaborating with the judicial system. Juan David Ochoa negotiated a surrender and was imprisoned in a medium security prison outside Medellín. In January 1996, as the result of a sentence plea bargain with the state, Juan David Ochoa Vásquez was released from prison after serving five years.Karla Homolka
Karla Leanne Homolka (born May 4, 1970), also known as Leanne Teale, is a Canadian serial killer who, with her first husband Paul Bernardo, raped and murdered at least three minors. She attracted worldwide media attention when she was convicted of manslaughter following a plea bargain in the 1991 and 1992 rape-murders of two Ontario teenage girls, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, as well as the rape and death of her sister Tammy.Homolka and Bernardo were arrested in 1993. In 1995, Bernardo was convicted of the two teenagers' murders and received life in prison and a dangerous offender designation, the full maximum sentence allowed in Canada. During the 1993 investigation, Homolka stated to investigators that Bernardo had abused her and that she had been an unwilling accomplice to the murders. As a result, she struck a deal with prosecutors for a reduced prison sentence of 12 years in exchange for a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter. Homolka scored 5/40 on the Psychopathy Checklist, in contrast to Bernardo's 35/40.However, videotapes of the crimes surfaced after the plea bargain and demonstrated that she was a more active participant than she had claimed. As a result, the deal that she had struck with prosecutors was dubbed in the Canadian press the "Deal with the Devil". Public outrage about Homolka's plea deal continued until her high-profile release from prison in 2005.Following her release from prison, she settled in the province of Quebec, where she married again. She briefly lived in the Antilles and Guadeloupe but by 2014 was back in Canada and living in Quebec.Lafler v. Cooper
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.
Anthony Cooper was charged by the State of Michigan with assault with intent to murder and three other offenses. After being incorrectly advised by his lawyer that the prosecution would be unable to prove intent to murder, he rejected a plea bargain. After being convicted at a fair trial, he appealed his conviction, arguing that his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance of counsel by advising him to reject the plea deal. Michigan courts denied him relief, but federal courts granted a writ of habeas corpus requiring the State to reduce Cooper's sentence to the one he would have received under the plea agreement. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
Writing for the 5–4 majority, Justice Kennedy ruled that ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations can constitute grounds for relief if there is a fair probability that defense counsel's ineffective assistance resulted in a harsher sentence or conviction. In those cases, Justice Kennedy wrote, trial judges should exercise discretion in choosing to vacate a conviction and accept the original plea bargain, resentence the defendant, or leave the original conviction undisturbed. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts (in large part) which argued that the majority had invented a constitutional right to plea bargain. Justice Alito also wrote a dissenting opinion in which he largely agreed with Justice Scalia and specifically argued that the majority's remedy was unsound.
Reactions following the Supreme Court's ruling were mixed, with some commentators praising the Court's recognition of the role of plea bargaining in criminal justice and others criticizing the implications of not sufficiently protecting defendants' rights and of requiring defense counsel to plea bargain at the desire of the prosecutor.Lawrence Ricci
Lawrence A. Ricci (June 17, 1945 – October 2005) was a reputed Genovese crime family caporegime.
Officially a dairy products salesman, Ricci was allegedly a major mob figure. In 1979, Ricci was sentenced to prison for attempting to extort $4,800 from a Parsippany, New Jersey restaurant owner.In February 2005, Ricci was charged with wire fraud and extortion. Using his alleged control of an International Longshoremen’s Association local, Ricci was accused of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Cosa Nostra from a medical fund for longshoremen. Ricci allegedly embezzled the money by steering a union pharmaceutical contract to a company with known Mafia ties. The Genovese and Gambino crime families netted over $400,000 and Ricci received $70,000. The trial began in mid-September. On October 7, 2005, Ricci failed to show up in court. The judge issued an arrest warrant for Ricci and the trial continued. On November 7, 2005, the absent Ricci and his two co-defendants were acquitted on all counts.On November 30, 2005, a patron complained about a foul odor and flies around a car at the Huck Finn Diner in Union, New Jersey. The car had been parked at the diner for the last six weeks. The restaurant manager called police, who discovered the rapidly decomposing body of Lawrence Ricci in the trunk; he had been shot. There was speculation that the Genovese family killed Ricci during his trial because he had refused to accept a plea bargain and a prison sentence. A law enforcement official was also quoted as saying the slaying resulted from an unrelated power struggle in Ricci's mob crew.In March 2007, federal authorities linked Genovese member Michael Coppola to the Ricci murder. However, no charges have been filed against Coppola.Lee Alexander (politician)
Lee Alexander (May 18, 1927 – December 25, 1996) was an American politician who served as the mayor of Syracuse, New York for 16 years.Alexander was born in Jersey City, New Jersey. He unsuccessfully ran for the United States Senate in 1974.
He was elected as mayor of Syracuse in 1970; he served as mayor until 1985. He was generally well liked by the academic and non-profit community and served as the president of the United States Conference of Mayors.
On July 16, 1987, Alexander was indicted in Federal District Court in Syracuse on 40 counts of extortion, income tax evasion, racketeering and conspiracy. In January 1988, Alexander pleaded guilty to racketeering and extortion, conspiracy to obstruct the Government's investigation and income-tax evasion on at least $1.2 million in bribes and kickbacks. As part of a plea bargain, he agreed to serve 10 years in prison and pay a $100,000 fine. Alexander spent nearly six years in jail for his crimes and was released from prison in 1994.Alexander died at his home of cancer on December 25, 1996.Legal case
A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal law. In each legal case there is an accuser and one or more defendants.Lionel Tate
Lionel Alexander Tate (born January 30, 1987) is the youngest American citizen ever sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In January 2001, when Tate was 13, he was convicted of first-degree murder for the 1999 battering death of 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick in Broward County, Florida.Milan Babić
Milan Babić (Serbian Cyrillic: Милан Бабић; 26 February 1956 – 5 March 2006) was a Croatian Serb politician who served as the first president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, a self-proclaimed state largely populated by Serbs of Croatia that wished to break away from Croatia during the Croatian War of Independence.
After the war, he was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 2004 and was the first ever indictee to plead guilty and enter a plea bargain with the prosecution, after which he was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Babić expressed "shame and remorse" in a public statement and declared that his plea bargain was intended to relieve the collective shame of the Croatian Serbs, and asked his "Croatian brothers to forgive their Serb brothers" for their actions.
After he was sentenced in 2004, Babić was found dead in his prison cell in The Hague in March 2006, in an apparent suicide.Nicole Speirs
Nicole Marie Speirs (born November 3, 1983 - March 25, 2006) made headlines in the area of Tooele, Utah as a domestic violence murder victim. She was killed March 25, 2006 at age 22, by her then-boyfriend and father of her twins, Walter Smith. On the night of Nicole's death, Smith reported that he found her dead in her home, drowned in her bathtub, after returning from a trip to Idaho. The autopsy confirmed that drowning was the cause of death. Tooele is located approximately 18 miles west of Salt Lake City.
Smith, her 24-year-old boyfriend and a member of the United States Marines who had returned from Iraq, was not immediately known to have killed her until December 12, 2006, when he confessed to the killing. According to police, Smith walked into a Veteran's Administration hospital building and confessed eight months after the fact. Smith was since discharged from the Marines.
On August 14, 2007, Smith pleaded guilty to a second-degree manslaughter charge as part of a plea bargain. He was originally charged with first-degree felony murder.
Smith and Nicole's parents agreed to a plea bargain. He was sentenced 1–15 years for 2nd degree manslaughter on October 9, 2007.Nolo contendere
Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin phrase for "I do not wish to contend" and it is also referred to as a plea of no contest.
In criminal trials in certain United States jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. A no-contest plea, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain. In many jurisdictions a plea of nolo contendere is not a typical right and carries various restrictions on its use.Runaway bride case
The runaway bride case was the case of Jennifer Carol Wilbanks (born March 1, 1973), an American woman who ran away from home on April 26, 2005, in order to avoid her wedding with John Mason, her fiancé, on April 30. Her disappearance from Duluth, Georgia, sparked a nationwide search and intensive media coverage, including media speculation that Mason had killed her. On April 29, Wilbanks called Mason from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and falsely claimed that she had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by a Hispanic man and a white woman.
Jennifer Wilbanks gained notoriety in the United States and internationally, and her story persisted as a major topic of national news coverage for some time after she was found unharmed. Many critics of the mass media attacked the coverage as a "media circus". Howard Kurtz, an influential media critic for The Washington Post and CNN-TV, and Fox News wrote that the runaway bride had become a "runaway television embarrassment", comparing the story to a TV soap opera.Wilbanks repeated the false claims that fell apart under FBI interrogation resulting in a felony indictment of providing false information to law enforcement, a charge that could have resulted in up to five years of imprisonment. On June 2, 2005, Wilbanks pleaded no contest to this charge. As part of her plea bargain, she was sentenced to two years of probation and 120 hours of community service, and she was also ordered to pay $2,250 in restitution to the Gwinnett County Sheriff's Department. As part of the plea bargain, a misdemeanor charge of filing a false police report was dismissed. Wilbanks's criminal record was expunged after she successfully completed her period of probation.
On March 15, 2008, Wilbanks's ex-fiancé, John Mason, married another woman, Shelley Martin, in a quiet ceremony at his parents' home in Duluth, Georgia. Wilbanks and Mason's original wedding was to have had 600 guests and 28 bridesmaids.Yona Metzger
Yona Metzger (Hebrew: יונה מצגר; born 4 August 1953) is an Israeli Orthodox rabbi and the former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel. In 2013, while chief rabbi, a fraud investigation was opened. Metzger later pleaded guilty to a number of corruption charges, was tried and convicted, and after a plea bargain was rejected, served prison time.
Criminal procedure (investigation)
|Charges and pleas|