Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

[R. U. Sirius]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-g

The criminal justice system in the United States today bears little relationship to what the Founding Fathers contemplated, what the movies and television portray, or what the average American believes.

To the Founding Fathers, the critical element in the system was the jury trial, which served not only as a truth-seeking mechanism and a means of achieving fairness, but also as a shield against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The Constitution further guarantees that at the trial, the accused will have the assistance of counsel, who can confront and cross-examine his accusers and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. He may be convicted only if an impartial jury of his peers is unanimously of the view that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and so states, publicly, in its verdict.

The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury. But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.

An article examining how plea-bargaining, once a tool simply to help keep courts from being overwhelmed, has evolved to almost completely undermine the standards of justice America supposedly holds itself to.

[Ultimate Paragon]

What can be done to solve this problem?

[RavynousHunter]

Could you plead the Sixth when faced with plea bargaining, like one can plead the Fifth during trial?

[R. U. Sirius]

You can turn down the plea bargain and go to trial, but the prosecutor has complete discretion on what charges they can file based on the evidence, so they'll hit you with the harshest one they can.

As for how to fix it, the writer gives a few suggestions at the end of the article.

[Yla]

Link appears to be borked. My attempt at reconstruction:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/

[R. U. Sirius]

That's it. Sorry about that.

[The_Queen]

Could you plead the Sixth when faced with plea bargaining, like one can plead the Fifth during trial?

From Cornell Law School

Although plea bargaining allows the criminal justice system to conserve resources, it is controversial. Some commentators believe that it is inappropriate in that it allows defendants to get off too easily. Others argue that it is too coercive and undermines important constitutional rights. Plea bargaining does require defendants to waive three rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly rejected arguments that plea bargaining is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). But it has held that defendants’ guilty pleas must be voluntary, and that defendants may only plead guilty if they know the consequences of doing so. McCarthy v. United States 394 U.S. 459 (1969)

Emphasis added

[RavynousHunter]

So, so long as I don't waive my rights, they can't force me to make a plea?

[R. U. Sirius]

If you're willing to roll the dice on a jury trial with much harsher charges and the prosecutor pushing for the maximum possible sentence, yes.

[dpareja]

If you're willing to roll the dice on a jury trial with much harsher charges and the prosecutor pushing for the maximum possible sentence, yes.

I've always found it weird that the US forces defendants to accept a trial by jury.

[The_Queen]

If you're willing to roll the dice on a jury trial with much harsher charges and the prosecutor pushing for the maximum possible sentence, yes.

I've always found it weird that the US forces defendants to accept a trial by jury.

It doesn't. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, a jury trial can be waived if both the government and the defendant agree that it should be waived. Most state criminal proceedings give defendants an absolute right to waive a jury trial that the prosecution cannot override.

If a jury trial is waived, then a bench trial is held. In jury cases, issues of fact are to be decided by a jury, while the judge oversees the case's application of law. In a bench trial, the judge acts as both the finder of law and the finder of fact. Studies show there are little differences in how the two are applied, but some studies indicate that it is easier to fleece a jury than a judge.

Also, Ravy, most plea bargains come in the form of a document for you to sign and that document contains provisions saying that you waive those rights, what punishment you are accepting, and a waiver limiting your right to appeal. Ergo, you just can't accept the plea, but then turn around and decide you did not waive the rights. It's all or nothing.

[dpareja]

If you're willing to roll the dice on a jury trial with much harsher charges and the prosecutor pushing for the maximum possible sentence, yes.

I've always found it weird that the US forces defendants to accept a trial by jury.

It doesn't. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, a jury trial can be waived if both the government and the defendant agree that it should be waived. Most state criminal proceedings give defendants an absolute right to waive a jury trial that the prosecution cannot override.

If a jury trial is waived, then a bench trial is held. In jury cases, issues of fact are to be decided by a jury, while the judge oversees the case's application of law. In a bench trial, the judge acts as both the finder of law and the finder of fact. Studies show there are little differences in how the two are applied, but some studies indicate that it is easier to fleece a jury than a judge.

Okay, I didn't know that about state law. However, if you're in a federal court, and you're innocent, you'll probably want a bench trial since it's harder for a prosecutor to bullshit a judge than a jury. (Conversely, if you're guilty, you want a jury trial since it's easier for a defence lawyer to bullshit a jury than a judge.) But you can't have a bench trial unless the government agrees--why? Why can the state force a defendant to accept a right he doesn't want?

[Katsuro]

I once saw a documentary with real police interrogation footage where the cops managed to convince a fully mentally competent 16 year old kid, through hours of constant berating, lies and producing falsified evidence (that the cops only used to get a confession, they had no intention of the "evidence" in court), that he'd murdered someone even though he had no memory of doing it.  The reason why he had no memory of doing it of course was because he didn't do it, the real evidence turned out to point at someone else.

It was rather weird to see this kid in the tape in tears saying over and over how he couldn't remember doing it but he must've done it etc. Was also interring in terms of the psychology and as a demonstration of why a confession doesn;t mean shit and shouldn;t be relied on so much by the justice system.  But it's also rather worrying how relatively easy it is to not just get an innocent person to confess to but to genuinely make themselves think they did it when they didn't.  How many people every year confess  believing themselves to be guilty when they were innocent?

[The_Queen]

If you're willing to roll the dice on a jury trial with much harsher charges and the prosecutor pushing for the maximum possible sentence, yes.

I've always found it weird that the US forces defendants to accept a trial by jury.

It doesn't. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, a jury trial can be waived if both the government and the defendant agree that it should be waived. Most state criminal proceedings give defendants an absolute right to waive a jury trial that the prosecution cannot override.

If a jury trial is waived, then a bench trial is held. In jury cases, issues of fact are to be decided by a jury, while the judge oversees the case's application of law. In a bench trial, the judge acts as both the finder of law and the finder of fact. Studies show there are little differences in how the two are applied, but some studies indicate that it is easier to fleece a jury than a judge.

Okay, I didn't know that about state law. However, if you're in a federal court, and you're innocent, you'll probably want a bench trial since it's harder for a prosecutor to bullshit a judge than a jury. (Conversely, if you're guilty, you want a jury trial since it's easier for a defence lawyer to bullshit a jury than a judge.) But you can't have a bench trial unless the government agrees--why? Why can the state force a defendant to accept a right he doesn't want?

...

From the Supreme Court in Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965)

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a) sets forth a reasonable procedure governing proffered waivers of jury trials. A defendant's only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. Although he may waive his right to trial by jury, Patton v. United State, 281 U. S. 276, there is no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge when, if either refuses to consent, the result is that the defendant is subject to an impartial trial by jury -- the very thing that the Constitution guarantees him. Pp. 380 U. S. 238.

Again, emphasis added. In essence, this is a right given to the defendant to protect him in criminal proceedings. He can waive this protection, but according to federal reasoning, if he wants to waive it, but is denied, there is no harm to him since the jury is impartial (and voir dire selection still favor the defense).

[dpareja]

If you're willing to roll the dice on a jury trial with much harsher charges and the prosecutor pushing for the maximum possible sentence, yes.

I've always found it weird that the US forces defendants to accept a trial by jury.

It doesn't. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, a jury trial can be waived if both the government and the defendant agree that it should be waived. Most state criminal proceedings give defendants an absolute right to waive a jury trial that the prosecution cannot override.

If a jury trial is waived, then a bench trial is held. In jury cases, issues of fact are to be decided by a jury, while the judge oversees the case's application of law. In a bench trial, the judge acts as both the finder of law and the finder of fact. Studies show there are little differences in how the two are applied, but some studies indicate that it is easier to fleece a jury than a judge.

Okay, I didn't know that about state law. However, if you're in a federal court, and you're innocent, you'll probably want a bench trial since it's harder for a prosecutor to bullshit a judge than a jury. (Conversely, if you're guilty, you want a jury trial since it's easier for a defence lawyer to bullshit a jury than a judge.) But you can't have a bench trial unless the government agrees--why? Why can the state force a defendant to accept a right he doesn't want?

...

From the Supreme Court in Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (1965)

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a) sets forth a reasonable procedure governing proffered waivers of jury trials. A defendant's only constitutional right concerning the method of trial is to an impartial trial by jury. Although he may waive his right to trial by jury, Patton v. United State, 281 U. S. 276, there is no constitutional impediment to conditioning a waiver of this right on the consent of the prosecuting attorney and the trial judge when, if either refuses to consent, the result is that the defendant is subject to an impartial trial by jury -- the very thing that the Constitution guarantees him. Pp. 380 U. S. 238.

Again, emphasis added. In essence, this is a right given to the defendant to protect him in criminal proceedings. He can waive this protection, but according to federal reasoning, if he wants to waive it, but is denied, there is no harm to him since the jury is impartial (and voir dire selection still favor the defense).

Which is bull, since a rational defendant would only waive the right to a jury trial if said defendant thought that a bench trial would be preferable, so forcing a jury trial against the defendant's explicit request does in fact harm the defendant by forcing a situation that the defendant feels is worse.