Agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant
POPULARITY
29 episodes with plea bargaining
4 episodes with plea bargaining
2 episodes with plea bargaining
2 episodes with plea bargaining
2 episodes with plea bargaining
2 episodes with plea bargaining
2 episodes with plea bargaining
In this episode, Jeff analyzes President Trump's handling of negotiations with Iran and its terror proxies, as well as America's jihadist universities, and demonstrates that the desire for the bestest of deals doesn't always end with good results for America and its allies. America needs a strong ideologue in place during these difficult times and not a used car salesman.The new four episode Max docuseries about the Sinaloa Cartel is out and you've got a review from the one person who actually knows the truth — Jeff — and he points out the obviously fabrications contained therein. If you real true crime stories you don't want to miss this podcast.
In this episode, Jeff finds a fresh low for Hamas: celebrations around the coffins of babies they kidnaped and massacred. When will the world stand up? When will President Trump open the gates of hell he promised? Jeff provides a quick plan to fix the terrorist threat from Gaza. Also, federal prosecutors in NYC rightly quit in protest of the Department of Justice's political decision to dismiss the indictment against NYC Mayor Adams — but don't think for a second they're above politics in their own actions: exhibit A is the phony 3.5 year investigation of James O'Keefe.
In this new episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeff unwinds all things Luigi: from the arrest to the initial state charges, to the upgraded First Degree Murder charge, to the shocking federal charges. Included is Jeff's insight on why everything seemed to change in the prosecution — the impact of the massive pro-Luigi public groundswell is the culprit. In other news, Jeff describes a trip to Florida for a plea on a multi-million dollar fraud case which incredibly ended with no conviction for his young client, and why a generous act a few days prior may have caused this result. Lastly, NYC Mayor Adams' big mouthed top aide gets indicted and she still can't stop talking to the press. An update to an earlier podcast lays all the stupidity out. In short, Jeff called this one early.
In this episode, Jeff dives into the trial of Daniel Penny, the former Marine charged in the death of Jordan Neely on a New York subway. With jurors grappling over manslaughter charges, Jeff explores the legal, cultural, and moral dimensions of the case. Was Penny a reckless vigilante or the hero every New Yorker prays for when chaos erupts underground? And how does Alvin Bragg, Manhattan's controversial DA, fit into this mess?Then, a dramatic shift in the Middle East: the Assad regime crumbled this past weekend with shocking speed, leaving Syria in rebel hands and Iran's terror network shattered. Jeff unpacks why this is more than just the fall of a dictator — it's the collapse of a decades-long “axis of resistance.” From Iran's humiliation to Hezbollah's downfall, find out how Israel pulled off what seemed impossible in just 14 months.
Jeffrey Lichtman dives into the art of trial summation, sharing how a line from a 1977 Robbie Benson film unexpectedly found its way into the John Gotti, Jr. summation. Bottom line: the more that's in your brain, the more that can come out — and help you — at unexpected times.Next, Jeff unpacks the bail denial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, highlighting the challenges of defending a high-profile client when the media circus and public perception play a heavier role than the facts of the case. From alleged jailhouse rule-breaking to a judge unwilling to take the risk, Jeff explains why this outcome isn't surprising — and how defense lawyers need to be careful not to help the judge hurt their client.Finally, a blistering critique of Joe Biden: the President was spotted with a book by an anti-Israel provocateur while Americans remain hostages in Gaza. Jeff connects Biden's public nod to Palestinian propaganda with the surge of anti-Semitism in North America and abroad, calling out the administration's complicity in enabling global Jew-hate.
In this episode, Jeffrey Lichtman dives into the aftermath of the 2024 election — Kamala Harris's resounding defeat and the unexpected national shift that defied nearly every major poll. Jeff openly admits he underestimated the American electorate, having repeatedly predicted that Trump could never win. But last week, Trump did just that, sweeping the popular vote, dominating in swing states, and leaving pundits scrambling to explain why they got it so wrong. Jeff reflects on the issues that broke in Trump's favor: from crime and immigration to economic and foreign policies that Americans across demographics were ready to change.Jeff also dissects the hypocrisy of the left's elite, who preached social justice and open borders while ignoring Americans' real needs. He explores the hard truths that Harris and the Democrats refused to face, from soaring crime rates to economic strain and unchecked immigration. America had enough, and Jeff sees this election as a signal that the tide has turned. With the House and Senate now in his favor, Trump has a narrow window to make real changes, but as Jeff warns, he can't waste time this time around.
Today, Hunter is joined once again by Rebecca Schaffer to discuss plea bargaining in Europe. As we did on Tuesday, this episode aims to help people understand the intractable problems with plea deals and what countries are doing to try and ameliorate those problems Guests: Rebecca Schaffer, Former Legal Director, Fair Trials Resources: Follow Rebecca on Twitter https://x.com/rebeccashaeffe?lang=en Email Rebecca rebecca.shaeffer@gmail.com Read the Reports https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/film-video/trial-waiver-systems-in-europe-punishment-without-a-trial/ https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/the-disappearing-trial/ Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home
Today, Hunter is joined once again by Lucian Dervan to discuss plea bargaining. This time, he joins to discuss what we can learn about plea bargaining from Japan's failed attempt to implement plea bargaining system. Guests: Lucian Dervan, Professor of Law and Director of Criminal Justice Studies, Belmont College of Law, Founding Director of the Plea Bargaining Institute Resources: Link to Lucian's book on Plea Bargaining https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/440099902/ Lucian's Work with Plea Bargaining Institute https://pleabargaininginstitute.com/about-pbi/founding-director/ Study on Japan and Korea https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3768687 https://news.belmont.edu/dervan-shares-research-on-plea-bargaining-with-japanese-officials/ Original Study https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss1/1/ Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home
With Election Day looming, Jeff dives into the political desperation driving the Democrats' strategy—and why, for the first time, he's decided to vote for Trump. As smear campaigns and absurd accusations pile up, Jeff examines the stark reality of what's at stake and contrasts the Democrats' fearmongering with the mess they've actually created: open borders, sky-high consumer prices, and the normalization of anti-Semitic hate crimes. If the stakes weren't so high, he might sit this one out, but at this point, voting has become a defense mechanism for what remains of the country's sanity.Shifting gears, Jeff discusses how ineffective assistance of counsel claims made by imprisoned clients shouldn't ruffle a defense lawyer's feathers — the clients are in jail after all. Using his own experience with high-profile clients, including El Chapo, he sheds light on the personal, ethical, and sometimes laughable aspects of these claims—and the mess the press often makes when covering them.Finally, Jeff pays a long-overdue tribute to the band Social Distortion, a band that's resonated with him for decades. More than just rockabilly punk, the band's music speaks to struggle, redemption, and raw honesty. From “When the Angels Sing” to “I Was Wrong,” Jeff shares why these tracks mean so much to him, urging listeners to give the band a chance beyond his podcast snippets.
Jeffrey Lichtman returns with a no-holds-barred breakdown of the upcoming election, offering his scathing analysis of the Harris/Biden administration's four years. He questions why Harris, after four disastrous years in office, refuses to say what she would do differently than Biden — when she could honestly answer that the last four years was Biden's fault. Harris' inability to answer even the simplest questions becomes a centerpiece of this episode, along with her jaw-dropping agreement with pro-Palestinian protesters that Israel has committed genocide. Lichtman highlights the terrifying implications of a continued administration that coddles terrorists while simultaneously lying to the American people about crime stats and the economy.In lighter news, Jeff shares his strong, hilarious warnings against going on a cruise—unless Legionnaire's disease and Baked Alaska are your idea of a good time. He then offers his thoughts on what it takes to win in the courtroom on big media cases, reflecting on his own experiences in high-profile trials. From Kamala's dangerous incompetence to the absurdities of cruises, Jeff covers it all in this blistering episode.
In this episode, Jeff analyzes the evidence against Mayor Eric Adams and finds him to be a low-level grifter with a penchant for obstruction of justice. But why did the federal prosecutors not request a dollar of bail for him when they successfully sought to detain Sean Combs pretrial? Adams sold out NYC to a Muslim terror state and Combs had sex parties. The uneven application of the law is startling.And Jeff recaps Israel's incredible week of decapitating Hezbollah in the most humiliating fashion. Why Kamala Harris wants Iran's strongest terror proxy to survive via ceasefire is shocking. How can peace in the Middle East be achieved when Iran is permitted to occupy and terrorize country after country? Israel had enough of this and acted alone, with historical success.
In this episode, Jeff provides updates on several high-profile cases. First, he breaks down the latest news surrounding his client, Joaquin Guzman Lopez, son of El Chapo, who arrived in the U.S. from Mexico with the world's biggest drug dealer in tow. An absurd international saga followed.Next, Jeff shares a positive outcome for his elderly client, former doctor Stephen Miller, who received probation instead of a prison sentence after assisting a terminally ill woman's suicide. With this disposition, Miller avoids spending his final years behind bars.Jeff then revisits his lawsuit against Columbia University, where pro-Hamas students overreacted to a harmless prank by two Israeli students involving a novelty fart spray. Despite clear evidence, Columbia's administration chose to punish the Israeli students while giving the terror-supporting students a pass. In the new school year, Columbia's administration shows it has learned nothing.Finally, Jeff reflects on Kamala Harris's dangerous appeasement of Hamas supporters, a troubling stance that raises serious concerns about her leadership as the world faces increasing instability.
In this episode, Jeff delves into the recent Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where Kamala Harris swore she is the only one who can fix America's current problems while conveniently ignoring her role in creating the mess over the past four years. The real show, though, was outside, where pro-Palestinian rioters attempted to turn the convention into a war zone. Yet Democrats suddenly discovered the utility of walls—just not for our borders. Jeff breaks down the hypocrisy and the disturbing poll numbers showing that Democrats increasingly support Hamas over Israel. PS: Someone check Tim Walz's Google searches. Next, Jeff shares an update on his client, Joaquin Guzman Lopez, son of El Chapo. Despite claims that he captured the world's most notorious fugitive drug lord, Mayo Zambada, Joaquin now faces kidnapping charges from the Mexican government, which for some odd reason seems angry that the biggest criminal in their country is in custody.
In this podcast, Jeff describes his hectic week which started with the startling news of the arrest of a 50 year fugitive, “El Mayo” Zambada and the murky circumstances around his capture. Jeff ended up in court in Chicago to represent Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of “El Chapo” and the second person on the plane with El Mayo when they touched down in Texas from Mexico.Jeff also discusses the anointment of Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee, after it became crystal clear that Biden was set up in that debate, only to be forced out. Harris is incredibly unlikable and incompetent, which is why she was trounced in the 2020 primaries; only if she could be installed at the last minute, without winning a single primary or vote, could the liberal press – which lampooned her for 3 ½ years – turn on a dime and push her cackling carcass across the finish line, all the while hiding her flaws. To Jeff, what hurts the most is Harris' horrible treatment of Blacks in California when she was the San Francisco DA and the state's Attorney General: Blacks make up 6% of the population in California and Harris ensured that the prison population was 29% Black, including mothers whose children were truant from school and non-violent marijuana defendants. That Blacks can forgive her for this treatment is both stupefying and sad. Finally, Jeff discusses the imminent war between Iran and Israel and notes that this is finally the time for the West to rid the world of the global cancer that is the Iranian regime and its terror proxies. Iran has only grown to become more of a threat globally and now may have nuclear weapons: if not now, when can the mullahs be destroyed, as they promise to kill civilians inside Israel, after directing the Hamas October 7 terror attack which killed citizens from all over the world?
In this episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeff dissects the monumental news of Joe Biden dropping out of the presidential race. It's not because he recognized his incompetence, but because his disastrous debate performance left him without support. Jeff describes Biden's fall as a humiliation he richly deserved, detailing how his party, advisors, and even his family abandoned him, using and abusing him until there was nothing left.Moreover, Biden's parting shot—endorsing Kamala Harris—shows his true priorities: pushing a DEI agenda over competent leadership. Jeff pulls no punches in describing Harris as wholly unfit to handle global adversaries like Putin and China.Jeff then turns his attention to the troubling assassination attempt on Donald Trump. With the Secret Service seemingly asleep at the wheel, Jeff questions how a 20-year-old managed to come so close to changing history. From the roof left unguarded to the improbable sharpshooting skills of a previously inept gunman, Jeff explores the plot's glaring inconsistencies and leaves listeners pondering the deeper implications of such a security failure.Tune in for a scathing critique of political incompetence and a chilling look at how dangerously close we came to a national tragedy.
In this episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeffrey Lichtman takes a trip down memory lane, recounting his teenage years during the Iran hostage crisis and his bold fashion choices at Spencer Gifts. Reflecting on his long-standing frustration with the stagnant state of world affairs, Jeff vents about the repetitive and disheartening news cycle that seems to never improve since his days on New York City talk radio.Shifting gears, Jeff dives into a compelling murder case he's currently handling in Queens, NY. A woman falls to her death from a sixth-floor apartment, and her boyfriend stands accused of murder. Jeff outlines the case's core question: was it suicide or foul play? A trial awaits.The episode also tackles the recent Trump-Biden debate. Despite his aversion to Trump, Jeff expresses his desperation, suggesting he'd crawl over glass to vote for Trump, as Biden is barely alive. Jeff lambasts the current administration which is doing all that it can the obvious fact that Biden is not fit for office. And a vote for Biden is essentially a vote for his far-left advisors, who are clearly the ones in charge and who have gotten us into this global mess.
In today's episode, Jeff opens up about his deepening sense of hopelessness regarding the current state of America and its far-reaching implications for the world. He tackles the alarming rise of radical Islam combined with extreme liberalism and the surprising alliances formed with fringe far-right groups, all united by a shared hatred.Jeff doesn't mince words as he describes shocking incidents in New York City, including threats against Jewish individuals by Hezbollah supporters on the subway. He provides detailed accounts of these disturbing events, highlighting the lack of pushback and the growing acceptance of extremist ideologies. With a critical eye on how we've allowed such radical elements to proliferate, Jeff calls for urgent action and awareness, warning that our complacency could lead to disastrous consequences.This isn't a feel-good podcast, but a crucial wake-up call about the realities we face. If you're looking for light entertainment, this isn't the episode for you. But if you care about the future of America, listen on.Get episodes sent directly to you via email by subscribing at https://beyondthelegallimit.com/subscribe.
Today, Hunter is joined Lucian Dervan, Professor of Law and Director of Criminal Justice Studies at Belmont College and Founding Director of the Plea Bargaining Institute. For more than a decade, Lucian has been at the forefront of uncovering the troubling issues with America's plea deal driven criminal legal system. Lucian founded the Plea Bargaining Institute in order to bring together the latest and greatest research and caselaw on plea bargaining to help people challenge our plea bargaining system. Guests: Lucian Dervan, Professor of Law and Director of Criminal Justice Studies, Belmont College of Law, Founding Director of the Plea Bargaining Institute Resources: Plea Bargaining Institute https://pleabargaininginstitute.com/ Brady v US https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/742/ Lucian's Faculty Page https://www.belmont.edu/profiles/lucian-dervan/ 14 Principles of Plea Bargaining https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal-justice-magazine/2024/winter/fourteen-principles-path-forward-plea-bargaining-reform/ Plea Bargaining Study https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jclc Follow Lucian https://x.com/luciandervan?lang=en Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN *Any Comments made by Myself are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the views of the Colorao Office of the State Public Defender*
In this podcast, Jeff takes to task Donald Trump's defense attorneys who expressed their belief they never had a chance at trial. Does any high profile defendant have a decent chance in a criminal trial in NYC? Of course not — but that doesn't mean the lawyers should give a lackluster, whiny effort. Clear, avoidable mistakes were made and yet again, Trump's choice of lawyers results in an L. In other news, the Biden administration and the Democrats are doing all they can to keep Hamas in power and to destroy Israel. Not surprisingly, we now have Muslim terrorists and their supporters running wild on the streets of America. As America goes, so goes the world and the global anti-semtiism is at a level not seen since the Nazis. It is becoming increasingly rare to find good people to do the right thing when it comes to standing up to Muslim terror and for America: Jeff examines this phenomenon and asks you to harken back to his Oct 8, 2023 podcast where he predicted this sorry result.
In this explosive episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeffrey Lichtman delves into the disturbing rise of extremist activities on college campuses, focusing on a recent incident at Columbia University where Jewish students were targeted by pro-Hamas radicals. Imagine sending your child to a prestigious university, only to find they're subjected to hate-filled tirades from supporters of terrorism, right in the heart of their college campus—a place they should feel safe.Lichtman doesn't just narrate the events; he paints a vivid picture of the parental nightmare and the ideological battleground that many top-tier universities have become. With tuition fees sky-high, parents and students alike are left questioning the value of an education marred by unchecked radicalism and administrative apathy.As Jeffrey peels back the layers on this issue, he exposes the network of funding and support that sustains such extremist activities, suggesting the need for a deeper investigation, perhaps even at the congressional level. This episode is a call to action: for parents, students, and policymakers to reclaim the sanctity of education from the clutches of radicalism. Tune in as Lichtman brings his trademark fiery analysis to this urgent issue, demanding accountability.Subscribe to BTLL Direct to get episodes delivered to your inbox each week: https://BeyondTheLegalLimit.com/subscribe
In this podcast, Jeff discusses the Iranian missile attack on Israel which could have led to thousands of deaths if not for the skill of the Israelis and the incompetence of Iran. Regardless, a new status quo must be set: any Iranian terror proxy attack on Israel needs to be met with an attack on Iranian soil. Furthermore, the celebrations by the “ceasefire now crowd” as Iran was raining missiles down on Israel reveals the obvious: it was never about a wish for peace with the calls for ceasefire; it was always about saving Hamas to kill again. On a different note, Jeff compares two of the greatest rock bands of all time: The Who and Led Zeppelin. Despite The Who's massive catalogue of hits, they lack one volcanic element in their music which renders them in second place. Jeff reveals all, the dangers of looking for Satan in a backwards playing musical anthem, as well as only the second song that brings him to tears.
In this April Fool's Day podcast, Jeff reminisces about simpler times and lemonade stands, a time before the internet and cell phones — and how kids used to learn about new music. Jeff opines on the over the top searches of Sean Combs' two homes as he reveals he's been hired to represent P. Diddy's son. The government rarely fights fair when they have a major target in its sights. Jeff discusses how two top American universities handled their Muslim terror students in diametrically opposite ways: depending on whether the schools want to protect the students or the terrorists. As parents, the choice is obvious where to send your kids.Why do white supremacists conspire with Middle Eastern terrorists? A tale as old as time (or at least back to Nazi Germany). Finally, Jeff ends the podcast with a bang: he reveals the greatest rock album of all time. You can write to Jeff at https://BeyondTheLegalLimit.com/contact.
Dive into the complex history of America's drug war with George Fisher, former Massachusetts Attorney General and acclaimed scholar of criminal law. In his latest book, "Beware Euphoria," Fisher explores the moral and racial dimensions of drug prohibition, challenging conventional narratives. Join the conversation on Stanford Legal as Fisher discusses the impact of racial justice movements on drug policy, including the legalization of cannabis, offering profound insights into a contentious issue shaping legal and social discourse.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:George Fisher >>> Stanford Law School PageBeware Euphoria: The Moral Roots and Racial Myths of America's War on Drugs(00:00:00) Chapter 1: The Origins of Drug Prohibition Podcast guest, George Fisher, traces the history of drug prohibition, highlighting the departure of cannabis use from medical preservation. He also discusses the 19th-century roots of drug prohibition, particularly the moral concerns driving the anti-drug laws.(00:11:42) Chapter 2: Racial Narratives and Mass IncarcerationRich Ford discusses the common narrative linking mass incarceration to the war on drugs and its alleged racial motivations. Fisher challenges this narrative, arguing that early drug laws were about protecting whites' moral purity rather than targeting people of color. The conversation explores the racial dynamics of early drug laws, emphasizing the racism of indifference rather than explicit targeting.(00:20:20) Chapter 3: Moral Valence of Mind-Altering Drugs Fisher delves into the historical moral perceptions of mind-altering drugs, tracing back to Early Christian notions of reason and morality.He explains why certain drugs, like opium and later marijuana, were seen as threats to moral character, while alcohol was treated differently due to its varied uses.(00:26:15) Chapter 4: Legalization of Marijuana and Racial Justice The conversation shifts to the legalization of marijuana, highlighting its historical bans and recent movements towards legalization. Concerns about the increasing potency of marijuana and its potential backlash are explored, suggesting a need for careful regulation and messaging.(00:30:19) Conclusion: Closing RemarksRich Ford wraps up the conversation with George Fisher discussing insights and emphasizing the importance of discussing the ongoing struggle with drugs and intoxicants.
Jeff dives into the almost comedic legal saga of Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer, and his quest to end his federal supervised release early. Despite the steep odds, Cohen found a lawyer dumber than him and hilarity ensues.Jeff's week also ran the gamut from representing Chapo's son in Chicago on Monday to being on the business end of an emotional meltdown from opposing counsel during a deposition on Friday.Switching gears, Jeff riffs on the raw, rebellious roots of punk rock, spotlighting The Clash as the epitome of the genre's defiance and the personal resonance it holds for him. Some fantastic music finds its way into this episode — including the song he plays in his ears as all his trials are about to begin.The conversation takes a serious turn as Jeff tackles the recent violent breach at the Texas border by migrants, signaling the Biden administration's surrender of the border solely for political gains. In short, our country has been sold out.Finally, Jeff notes the expected abandonment of Israel by the Democrats. Iran is watching and the implications to our national security will be huge. For all these reasons, a change has to come in November — or else.
Jeff explains how he discovered the band Devo — and led him to rediscover the Rolling Stones. All of this sets the stage for some disgusting stories about peanut brittle and school stairwells.In other news, Joe Biden is terrified of losing the Muslim terror vote in Michigan. So what if these voters openly support Hamas and claim the October 7 massacre in Israel was an inside job? Joe Biden needs these votes so our allies need to die for them. In short: Donald Trump is an idiot but you'd be a bigger idiot to vote for Joe Biden.
In this month's On the Same Page episode, hosts Ashley Bender and Michael Olson embark on a thought-provoking exploration of the acclaimed book "Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal" by Carissa Byrne Hessick. Join us as we dissect the intricate layers of the plea bargaining system and unravel its profound implications on our criminal justice system. Drawing from Hessick's insightful analysis, we delve into the complexities of plea bargaining, shedding light on its prevalence, mechanics, and the far-reaching consequences for defendants, victims, and society at large. Through engaging discussions with legal experts, scholars, and practitioners, we examine the ethical dilemmas, systemic inequalities, and erosion of due process inherent in this often-overlooked aspect of our legal system. As we navigate through the pages of "Punishment Without Trial," we confront uncomfortable truths and challenge conventional wisdom, sparking a dialogue on the urgent need for reform. Join us as we confront the realities of plea bargaining and strive towards a more just and equitable path forward in Oklahoma's pursuit of justice.
In this podcast, Jeff admits that although he is not a Trump fan, it's simply impossible to ignore the fact that the criminal and civil trials brought against him were done so to prevent his election. None of these cases were serious enough that they needed to be brought. But they were and it wouldn't be so painful if his opponent was even remotely competent. But Joe Biden has opened the floodgates to millions of illegals including criminals, terrorists and spies — and now we will all pay. Biden's foreign policy decisions regarding Israel are now wholly impacted by Hamas supporters in Michigan, a state he feels he can't afford to lose. So while dozens of Americans were killed and kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, Biden is hell-bent on saving Hamas in order to gain the Muslim terror vote. Claiming that Hamas doesn't speak for the Palestinian people is also an easily-proven lie.Two musical interludes today: Lou Reed/The Velvet Underground and Big Star. Two hugely important bands that were ahead of their time. Jeff describes his dinner with Lou Reed as the time of his life. Using the urinal next to Big Star's Alex Chilton was also a fine moment.And lastly, Jeff provides a huge update on his Assisting Suicide case in upstate New York.
In this new podcast, Jeff describes two court appearances from this past week, one before Trump's judge from his defamation case and the other the detention hearing for his assisted suicide-charged client; a loss would guarantee his elderly client dying in jail before he even gets to trial.Otherwise, Jeff points out the Democrats' dual election strategies, present and future: altering foreign policy to appease Muslim terror supporters in swing states and keeping the borders open to ensure more future Democrat voters, regardless of the havoc each strategy will cause America.Finally, the second installment of the musical interlude is here and Jeff practically begs to get sued.
In this new podcast, Jeff patiently breaks down the disastrous handling of Trump's latest trial: it couldn't be more obvious that his lawyer had never tried a federal case before. What does that tell us about Trump's judgment when he hires the dumbest lawyer in America? A music recommendation. Just listen to it, you'll thank Jeff later. And some breaking news about two new cases Jeff was hired on: an assisted suicide case that may result in an 85-year-old doctor dying in prison; and Ivy League terrorists made to smell bad after calling for murder, genocide, and terrorism: they demand arrests.
Pretrial Procedures. Arraignment. Arraignment is a critical stage in criminal proceedings, marking the formal start of a criminal case against an individual. Process of Arraignment: Reading of Charges: The defendant is informed of the charges against them. Entering a Plea: The defendant enters a plea (guilty, not guilty, or no contest). Appointment of Counsel: If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed. Bail Hearing: A bail hearing may be conducted to determine if the defendant can be released from custody. Bail and Pretrial Detention. Bail is a system designed to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial while allowing them to remain free until the trial. Principles of Bail: Right to Bail: Most defendants have a right to bail, except in certain serious cases. Determining Bail Amount: Factors include the severity of the crime, flight risk, and the defendant's criminal history. Controversies Surrounding Bail: Inequality in the Bail System: Concerns arise when defendants cannot afford bail, leading to unequal treatment based on economic status. Risk to Public Safety: Releasing potentially dangerous individuals on bail poses public safety risks. Plea Bargaining. Process and Legal Standards. Plea bargaining is a process where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence or the dropping of other charges. Stages of Plea Bargaining: Negotiation: Involves discussions between the defense attorney, the prosecutor, and sometimes the judge. Agreement: A plea deal is reached, outlining the plea and the expected sentence. Court Approval: The court must approve the plea deal, ensuring it is voluntary and has a factual basis. Legal Requirements: Voluntariness: The defendant's decision to accept a plea deal must be voluntary and not coerced. Knowing and Intelligent Decision: The defendant must fully understand the rights they are waiving by pleading guilty. Ethical Considerations Ethical concerns in plea bargaining include: Pressure on Defendants: Concerns arise over whether defendants are pressured into accepting plea deals. Transparency and Fairness: Ensuring the plea bargaining process is transparent and fair to both parties. Overcrowded Court System Influence: The need to alleviate crowded court dockets should not compromise the quality of justice. Trial Process. Jury Selection. Jury selection, or voir dire, is the process of selecting the jurors who will decide the case. Process of Jury Selection: Summoning Potential Jurors: A group of potential jurors is summoned to court. Questioning: The judge and attorneys question the potential jurors to determine any biases or inability to be impartial. Selection: Jurors are selected to form the jury. Legal Standards for Jury Selection: Fair Cross-Section of the Community: The jury pool must represent a fair cross-section of the community. Elimination of Biased Jurors: Potential jurors who show bias or preconceived notions about the case can be removed. Burden of Proof. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Understanding Burden of Proof: Standard of Proof: The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Reasonable Doubt: A standard of proof that ensures the jury is firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. Verdict and Sentencing. After the trial, the jury deliberates and reaches a verdict. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge determines the sentence. Steps in Verdict and Sentencing: Jury Deliberation: The jury discusses the case and votes on the verdict. Announcement of Verdict: The verdict is read in court. Sentencing: If guilty, the judge sentences the defendant, considering various factors like the nature of the crime and criminal history. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support
In this new episode, Jeff explains how liberals have gone from goofy tree huggers to treasonous conspirators with America's worst enemies. Now the Houthis, who brought slavery back to Yemen — among other charming progressive ideals — are the darlings of the far left. We must stop this idiocy before we surrender the country to these lunatics.Jeff also explains that former Harvard president Claudine Gay should be an embarrassment to the Black community, not a fraudulent victim of racism. Pervasive academic fraud and rampant anti-Semitism should quickly require a university president to resign.
In this new podcast, Jeff details the massive global hypocrisy in the condemnation of Israel and the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza — as Hamas slaughters its own people and murders civilian hostages they took on Oct 7. The hypocrisy hit a crescendo last week as the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT somehow couldn't say that calling for the genocide of Jews is against their schools' code of conduct. This level of idiocy isn't surprising as each of the three schools is admitting inferior students and ensuring they graduate with A averages — churning out useless graduates. On a lighter note, Jeff details what life was like growing up in the 70s. Many parental beatings and the occasional mouth washed out with soap!
In this podcast, Jeff breaks down the utter insanity of Jew hate which has erupted globally as well as in NYC and throughout American college campuses. And he points out that now is the time to speak up. If you can't open your mouth now, you may never get another chance. Some students are heeding the call and refusing to be silent. Some strong voices for justice are coming from the most shocking places. Maybe it's time for you to wake up as well?Subscribe on our website to get episodes sent directly to your email inbox on Monday mornings: https://BeyondTheLegalLimit.com/subscribe
In this episode, trial lawyer Matt Martens explains how our American criminal justice system is broken and that in order for us to love all of our neighbors well, reforms need to be made. Matt Martens (JD, University of North Carolina School of Law; MABS, Dallas Theological Seminary) is a trial lawyer and partner at an international law firm in Washington, DC. He has spent the bulk of his more than twenty-five-year legal career practicing criminal law both as a federal prosecutor and as a defense attorney. He is also the author of 'Reforming Criminal Justice: A Christian Proposal' from Crossway. Read the full transcript of this episode. If you enjoyed this episode be sure to leave us a review, which helps us spread the word about the show! Complete this survey for a free audiobook by Kevin DeYoung!
In this podcast, Jeff provides an update on the war between Israel and Palestinian terrorists: “humanitarian” terror supporters are rampaging all over America and Europe demanding a ceasefire — even as they call for the genocide of Jews. Has anyone noticed either the hypocrisy of the “protestors” or that somehow we allowed hundreds of thousands of Islamist maniacs into our country after 9/11?Donald Trump definitely will not be in prison by Election Day. No chance.And Jeff has very colorful memories of a Puerto Rican Day Parade he was caught in the middle of, and how he, a white lawyer from NJ, survived it.
In this podcast, Jeff discusses the aftermath of last week's Palestinian massacre in Israel — laid bare are two opposing sides in the battle for civilization: you're either with Israel against the Islamic terror horde or you are with the terrorists. This is a battle between light and darkness, good and evil. There is no more grey area. Silence is complicity. Pick your side wisely.
http://hickeyandhull.com
This weekend saw the worst terror attack ever against Israel by the Palestinian-elected government. Children, women, and the elderly were raped, tortured, kidnapped, and killed. Citizens of multiple countries including the US, Mexico, and Germany were victims. Yet there are no #bringbackourgirls signs being held up by a sad-faced Michelle Obama, and Democrats held rallies for the Palestinian terrorists. Israel goes it alone, again, against the world's worst Muslim terrorists. Tune in to hear what they should do next.
In this new episode of Beyond the Legal Limit, Jeff explains the only issue that matters in the next election, which affects all the other issues: the invasion at our border. When even the liberal mayor and governor of NYC and NYS agree, it's time to wake up before it's too late. Jeff also discusses his client Ovidio Guzman's extradition to the U.S. and what comes next. Finally, Jeff reveals the origin of his germ phobia, which began with a tub of tuna fish and continues every time he orders a 12-inch sub at Subway.Get episodes sent directly to your inbox.
This episode explains Jeff's strategy behind achieving practically three no-jail federal sentencings in eight days — on cases totaling $11 million in fraud. Jeff also reveals that NYC Mayor Adams finally admits that the Biden administration's open border policy has destroyed his city. MAGA is mad at Jeff — the voicemail one of them left is priceless — and the Proud Boys actually think Trump will save them. Finally, Trump's brainless mouthpiece strikes again.Receive episodes directly to your inbox.
UPSC, SSC, UGC Preparation | Kapil Balhara | News Current Affairs General Knowledge Newspapers
Join us in this enlightening podcast episode as Kapil Balhara from Global Demos takes us on a journey to explore the evolution of consent-based dispute resolution mechanisms, such as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Plea Bargaining. We begin by understanding the challenges in the current legal system, including delays, high costs, and adversarial processes, leading to erosion of faith in the legal system. The need for change is evident, and we delve into how consent-based dispute resolution can address these challenges. We introduce Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a compelling alternative to traditional court procedures. ADR encompasses methods like Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, and Lok Adalat, and its essence lies in flexibility, problem-solving approach, and customizable settlements based on mutual interests. Taking a historical perspective, we trace the roots of consent-based dispute resolution in India, examining ancient practices of settlement outside the formal justice system, involving respected community members and private tribunals. We draw parallels between ancient methods and modern mediation, emphasizing direct participation of parties and the role of mediators as peacemakers. The impact of British rule on dispute resolution in India is explored, as British-style courts replaced traditional dispute resolution institutions, leading to the decline of indigenous practices. However, the evolution of arbitration laws in India, from the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, showcases a renewed focus on alternative means of resolving disputes. Moving on to post-independence, we analyze legislative provisions that promote ADR, including the establishment of the National Legal Services Authority in 1987 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. We discuss how courts actively refer cases to ADR methods, and various statutes, such as the Family Courts Act 1984, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, and the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008, provide for ADR in India. The podcast then delves into the significance of ADR in the Indian legal system, its recognition by the Supreme Court, and its role in procedural and family law. We explore the suitability of cases for ADR and the non-exhaustive and flexible list of cases for ADR referrals. The mandatory vs. optional ADR debate is discussed, along with the essential requirement for arbitration participation. In a digital age, the podcast highlights the rise of Online Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) as a powerful solution to address the challenges of e-commerce and geographical barriers. We discuss the role of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the impact of OADR on the Indian judiciary. The second part of the podcast is dedicated to exploring Plea Bargaining in India. We trace its origin and guiding principle, which emphasizes mutual satisfaction in a crowded justice system through cooperation between the defendant and prosecutor. Plea Bargaining's introduction in India as an alternative to obtain confessions under judicial supervision and its role in streamlining criminal justice are discussed. We then delve into the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and its Chapter XXI A, which governs Plea Bargaining in India. Eligibility criteria, exclusions, and the plea bargaining process are explained in detail, along with the court's discretion and voluntary consent. We explore the advantages and criticisms of Plea Bargaining, acknowledging its time-saving benefits but also discussing potential violations of justice principles and concerns regarding coercion. In conclusion, Kapil Balhara sheds light on India's approach to dispute resolution, emphasizing the blend of modernity and ancient traditions through ADR. The podcast highlights how consent-based dispute resolution methods like ADR and Plea Bargaining play a crucial role in achieving social justice and resolving disputes in the modern era. #pleabargaining
If you would like to support us on Patreon, go to patreon.com/twomancongressIn this episode, Chad and I discuss Plea Bargaining and whether or not it should be used in the court system.We discuss the history and current system, including the Constitutionality of the cases, Rule 11, and other alternatives. Below are links to sources we used throughout our discussion and debate.McCarthy v. United StatesBrady v. United StatesBordenkircher v. Hayes90% StatisticRule 11Alaska BanThe Waive AlternativeMost importantly, how does this information affect you? Well, now you have some idea of what plea bargaining is and the pros and the cons if you are ever found in a criminal court. Also, you have an idea of the alternatives to plea bargaining and some suggestions for changes that you can influence by being a voice.Be sure to leave us a review on Apple Podcast. This will help us improve our rankings so more people can hear what we have to say. Thank you for your support as we are striving to become better at presenting this valuable material.Support the showIf you would like to discuss legal topics in person, join Law Schoolers Pro at https://lawschoolers.com/law-schoolers-pro/Disclaimers:1. Nearly all of our episodes are unedited. We want to give you raw footage which means that there will be bumps, dings, and some pops.2. The information contained in these episodes are for educational purposes only, not to be used as legal advice.3. If the information is used as legal advice, Law Schoolers is not liable for any legal outcomes.
Danny Murphy, the Director of Right on Crime for Virginia and West Virginia, joins Garrett Ballengee and Jessica Dobrinsky Harris, Cardinal's Policy Analyst, for a discussion of what it means to reform the criminal justice system in America and how we can approach this issue from a perspective rooted in the principles of liberty. In this episode, we tackle issues like mandatory minimums, what it means to be “tough on crime,” differences in types of drug offenders, bail reform, plea bargaining, federalism, and more. Right on Crime ---------- Garrett Ballengee, Host Executive Director - @gballeng Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy Amanda Kieffer, Executive Producer Communications Director - @akieffer13 Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy Tony Reed, Editor & Producer Associate Director of Operations - @treed1134 International Center for Law & Economics Follow: YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram Support: Patreon, Donate, Newsletter
Although a right to trial is enshrined in the American Constitution, practically the nation's criminal justice system now resolves almost all cases through plea bargaining. This has raised many questions, including whether innocent people are effectively coerced into pleading guilty, whether similarly situated defendants are treated equally, and whether there is enough transparency to evaluate the system's effectiveness and correct injustices. In February 2023, a task force assembled by the Criminal Law Section of the American Bar Association released a report that made numerous recommendations for changing current policy and practice on plea bargaining. Amid a system struggling with COVID-era backlogs and rates of serious crimes that largely remain above 2019 levels, are there ways to bolster the effective availability of the right to trial without jeopardizing public safety or requiring an unrealistic increase in system capacity? Featuring:--Clark Niely, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute--Kent Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney, Pinal County, Arizona--[Moderator] Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice
So much of a criminal lawyer's work in negotiating a plea takes place behind the desk, on the phone, and in the hallways, rather than in the courtroom. Even when defense counsel and the prosecutor do not agree, a rich presentation when negotiating a plea lays the groundwork for effective sentencing advocacy. Get a quick and efficient overview in this podcast, excerpted from MCLE's 6/30/22 live webcast: Plea Bargain StrategyThe full program is available as an on demand webcast or an MP3 here. Get 24/7 instant access to hundreds of related eLectures like this one—and more—with a subscription to the MCLE OnlinePass. Learn more at www.mcle.org/onlinepass.
Most Americans believe that the jury trial is the backbone of our criminal justice system. But in fact, the vast majority of cases never make it to trial: almost all criminal convictions are the result of a plea bargain, a deal made entirely out of the public eye. Our guest today is Dan Canon, author of Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates a Permanent Criminal Class. Dan Canon is a civil rights lawyer, teacher, writer, and educator based primarily in Indiana and Kentucky. He is a professor of law at the Louis D Brandeis School of Law, and served as lead counsel for the Kentucky plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges. He focuses his lawyering work on defending the rights of incarcerated people, and challenging wrongful convictions, abuse and overreach by law enforcement. In his book, Dan Canon argues that plea bargaining may swiftly dispose of cases, but it also fuels an unjust system. This practice produces a massive underclass of people who are restricted from voting, working, and otherwise participating in society. And while innocent people plead guilty to crimes they did not commit in exchange for lesser sentences, the truly guilty can get away with murder. Follow Dan Canon on his website: https://www.dancanonlaw.com/ —- Subscribe to this podcast: https://plinkhq.com/i/1637968343?to=page Get in touch: lawanddisorder@kpfa.org Follow us on socials @LawAndDis: https://twitter.com/LawAndDis; https://www.instagram.com/lawanddis/ The post The deception of plea bargaining w/ Dan Canon appeared first on KPFA.
KMOX's Megan Lynch talks with Beth Huebner, Professor Criminal Justice at University of Missouri St. Louis about new reports provide unprecedented look at plea negotiations in the US.
Harvey Silverglate visits the Messy Times studios only to discover there is no daylight between us. Your Enlightentaining Host suspected that would be the case, having read and loved Harvey's brilliant book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. During a wide-ranging conversation between two free speech absolutists, we touch on a few topics of little controversy. Abolish the FBI. Plea Bargaining is Extortion. Harvard is Broken. The Harvard Corporation runs the University, including the rampant runaway Leftist nonsense which has spread throughout higher education in America, leading to among other things, the erosion of our educational rankings internationally. The Speech Codes and kangaroo courts at Harvard mirror the same neo-Marxist nonsense found at hundreds of colleges across the land. As an alumnus of Harvard Law School, who grew up with the mantra "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me," he is appalled by the Maoist censorship madness run amok on his former campus. He is running as a write-in candidate for the Harvard Board of Overseers, with a very simple, compelling and clear agenda. As for the FBI, it's an insanely corrupt institution from its inception and should be abolished immediately. We have all witnessed the recent travesties under Comey and Wray. Tune in to hear a defense attorney's view of this viper's nest. The FBI has never written an accurate Form 302 which is THEIR written recollection of what YOU are supposed to have said during an interview, during which YOU are not allowed to record anything. J. Edgar Hoover is alive and well and the FBI needs to be relegated to the history books as a cautionary tale about the dangers of centralized power in a republic. Lastly, and in keeping with the proper application of Justice in this country, every single defendant is entitled to a real trial, where the State must either prove its case or drop the matter. Plea bargaining is extortion, does enormous societal damage and should be outlawed instantly. Once you've heard us bash the living bejeebers out of the parasitic, overreaching Administrative Leviathan, might we suggest as a palate cleanser that you check out CoinGeek's Bitcoin 101 free course offering? More on Harvey and his books: https://www.harveysilverglate.com/about-harvey --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/messytimes/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/messytimes/support
In America, it is a fantasy to believe that people accused of a crime will have their case decided by a jury of their peers. The reality is that most convictions are achieved through plea bargains controlled by prosecutors. Is there a way to unwind this broken system of fast-tracked convictions? Christopher Wright Durocher speaks with Dan Canon, author of the book Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates a Permanent Criminal Class, about the unjust practice of plea bargaining and how we fix it. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and Program Guest: Dan Canon, Author of "Pleading Out" Link: "Pleading Out" by Dan Canon Link: "Criminalizing Race: Racial Disparities in Plea-Bargaining," by Carlos Berdejó Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2022.
Our guest today is Dan Canon, a civil rights lawyer, teacher, and author of "Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates a Permanent Criminal Class." His book is a searing analysis of America's assembly-line approach to criminal justice and the shameful practice at its core: the plea bargain. Canon is also known as counsel for Kentucky and Indiana plaintiffs in the landmark cases successfully supporting changes in marriage equality laws. Links: Dan's book: “Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates a Permanent Criminal Class”: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/dan-canon/pleading-out/9781541674684/ Greg's ZZs Blog: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/ #DanConan #PleadingOut# civilrights#lawyer#criminaljustice #marriageequality #Plea Bargaing#Attorney# #polticalanalysis #greggodels #zzblog #zzsblog #patcummings #ComingFromLeftField #podcast #laborhistory #unionbusting
If you believed the many legal dramas in TV reflected actual court proceedings, you would be under the impression that our legal system is driven by the battle of wits between two lawyers at trial. If, however, you examine how our legal system operates, you would see that long ago our system became one where trials are rare. Instead, it is the plea bargain sitting at the bedrock of our legal system, but how did this happen? How did our country go from outright rejecting plea bargains so that a jury trial may happen to a country that actively punishes those who seek out a trial? All that and more is at the forefront of this discussion between Hunter and Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick. Our guest is a law professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and author of the book Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining is bad Deal. As the title suggests and as many of my guests know, plea bargaining is likely not the best for the accused, for the alleged victims, or for society at large, but what is lost when we allow justice to be negotiated behind closed doors? Tune in to this episode to find out! Guests: Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Key Topics and Takeaways: Why Carissa Wanted to Write this Book [6:00] Carissa's viewpoints on the legal system prior to writing [8:00] How did Plea Bargaining become so prevalent? [13:37] How lawyers reacted to the rise of Plea Bargaining [17:00] Santabello v New York and SCOTUS' endorsement of Plea Bargaining [20:00] The Trial Penalty [22:00] The Role of The Chief Justice in Court Admin [25:00] Picking Apart Arguments for Plea Deals [28:00] How Plea Deals can Hide the Truth [31:00] Do Prosecutors have too much power and too many responsibilities? [35:00] The Stories of Scott Hechinger as a Brooklyn Defender [39:00] How Arizona circumvents Brady Requirements [45:00] The Discretionary Nature of our Legal System via Jury Trials [51:00] “Why Would you Plea Guilty to Something you Didn't Do? [57:00] How Could Law School do Better? [1:12:00] What to do about Plea Bargaining [1:20:00] Resources: Purchase Punishment Without Trial!! UNC Chapel Hill Bio Follow Carissa on Twitter Contact Hunter Parnell: hwparnell@publicdefenseless.com Instagram Twitter www.publicdefenseless.com
Join civil rights lawyer and University of Louisville law professor Dan Canon for a discussion of his new book Pleading Out – a blistering critique of America's assembly-line approach to criminal justice through plea bargaining, and the permanent criminal class it creates.
What happened to the jury trial, something considered essential to the Founders' vision for a criminal justice system? Dan Canon traces the slow death of the American jury trial in Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates a Permanent Criminal Class. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Carissa Hessick, Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, joins me to discuss her new book "Punishment Without Trial." There are a few things I heard that surprised me. Enjoy!
We are so excited to be joined by Dan Canon in this episode. Canon is a civil rights lawyer, teacher, writer, speaker, consultant and activist. Canon is a professor of law at the University of Louisville and is best known as lead counsel for the Kentucky plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling which secured the right to marriage for same-sex couples. Canon also ran for congress in the 9th district in 2018 and his campaign was the first political volunteering Graylin ever did! We also get a crash course on the logistics of gas prices with local resident Jim Koerber, plus some local news and recommendations. Introducing the Blue Dot Annual Membership…click here for all the details! Don't forget to call or text us at 502-653-9157. Send us an email at bluedotharrisoncounty@gmail.com or say hi on Instagram: @bluedotharrisoncounty BECOME A MEMBER Please know that this subscription is optional and the vast majority of our content will always be available free of charge. MAKE A ONE-TIME DONATION WE ARE HUMBLED BY ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT AND ARE EXCITED TO KEEP GOING.
Can there ever be true justice if most cases never make it to trial and instead are subject to plea bargaining? That's the question posed in the new book Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates A Permanent Criminal Class by Dan Canon who joins us to discuss this unfair and often unchecked part of the criminal justice system.
Can there ever be true justice if most cases never make it to trial and instead are subject to plea bargaining? That's the question posed in the new book Pleading Out: How Plea Bargaining Creates A Permanent Criminal Class by Dan Canon who joins us to discuss this unfair and often unchecked part of the criminal justice system.
*RUU KUHAP* ralat dikit ya:D Episode kali ini akan membahas kasus Bupati Langkat nonaktif yang selain tertangkap OTT juga diduga adanya praktik perbudakan di rumahnya. Berita ke 2 ada istilah Plea Bargaining yang disebut² akan masuk dalam RUUKUHAP. Bagaimana penjelasannya? Dengerin yuk❤ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/laili-amalia-puteri/message
Joshua B. Hoe interviews Carissa Byrne Hessick about her book “Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining is a Bad Deal”You can find complete show notes on our webpage https://decarcerationnation.com/
This panel discussion will revolve around Professor Hessick's book, Punishment without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining is a Bad Deal. PANELISTS: Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland “Buck” Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Shima Baradaran Baughman, Associate Dean of Research and Faculty Development, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law Samantha Dugan – Attorney, Legal Defenders Association Hillary King – Attorney, Legal Defenders Association Grant Miller – Attorney, Legal Defenders Association Liza M. Smith – Attorney, Legal Defenders Association This episode was originally recorded and Broadcast, January 14, 2022
In this special bonus episode, we share the audio from a debate between Clark Neily of the Cato Institute and Professor Richard Alpert on the ethics of plea bargaining. The debate was co-hosted by the Criminal Law Society and the Federalist Society on November 8, 2021.
David Eil talks with Carissa Byrne Hessick about her book, "Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal." *** Probable Causation is part of Doleac Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) corporation. If you enjoy the show, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you for supporting our work!
Follow our youtube channel to get more review materails: LawRequisitesPh
This podcast is powered by JewishPodcasts.org. Start your own podcast today and share your content with the world. Click jewishpodcasts.fm/signup to get started.
“Vi kan ikke lide at sige, at vi hævner, men det er jo det, vi gør”.Sådan lyder det bl.a. i denne episode 29 af Forbrydelse og Moral fra forsvarsadvokat Kristian Braad, da jeg foreholdte ham og ikke mindst personen overfor ham, anklager Anders Larsson, spørgsmålet om, hvorfor vi – set med deres øjne – straffer som vi gør. Jeg har i lang tid gerne ville sætte en dygtig forsvarsadvokat overfor en dygtig anklager, for dernæst at få dem til at tale dels om nogle af de emner, som tidligere i denne podcast har været drøftet, dels nogle nye emner – som ikke tidligere har været drøftet. Før vi i det her afsnit rigtig får talt os varme, får du kære lytter lov til kort at stifte bekendtskab med mine to gæster og ikke mindst deres karrieremæssige valg og veje, og jeg kan da allerede nu afsløre, at begge mine gæster har været en del af store, spændende og vel i virkeligheden historiske straffesager. Det var jeg godt klar over før vi satte os til at snakke, men da jeg indledningsvist får spurgt, om de to egentlig nogensinde har været på en sag sammen som anklagere, idet Kristian har en fortid i anklagemyndigheden, opdager jeg, at det har de. Endda ikke i hvilken som helst sag. Det var således netop disse to mænd, der som tidligere kollegaer førte straffesagen mod Said Mansour. En sag mod en mand, der i medierne blev døbt ”Boghandleren fra Brønshøj”. Hør mere om hvordan det var i det her afsnit. Det her er et afsnit, som jeg er rigtig stolt af. Det gav god mening og en god dynamik at smide nogle bolde op i luften for dernæst at se dem blive grebet at to dybt kompetente aktører inden for retssystemet, og det var kanon lærerigt. Vi taler om straffesystemet, virkningen af straffe, brugen af varetægtsfængsling – hvor den indsatte typisk sidder isoleret i sin celle 23 timer i døgnet uden at have fået en dom. Vi taler om pædagogik og retorik i retten, idet jeg afspiller og foreholder mine gæster et citat fra min tidligere gæst Ali Najei, og vi taler om Plea Bargaining – noget man kender fra det amerikanske system (og ikke mindst de amerikanske film), hvor sigtede personer tilstår forhold eller angiver medgerningsmænd for til gengæld selv at få en mildere straf. DET og meget mere, kan du høre om lige her i Forbrydelse og Moral episode 29. Mit navn er Jacob Barckmann. God fornøjelse.
Confrontation in the Age of Plea Bargaining. Will Ortman from Wayne State University argues for a modern interpretation of the Confrontation Clause that would give defendants a right to criminal depositions and that would in turn promote more informed and accurate plea bargaining.
FEBRUARY 7 -- 1984 McCandless becomes1st human to float untethered in space; 1936 Felix the Cat created; 2002 George W. Bush calls for Faith-Based Initiative; 1881 Plea Bargaining begins in American courts; 1988 Happy Birthday Detroit Lion QB Matt Stafford
In this episode, Keyukemi Ubi and Ese Aror discuss the first aspect of Trials under the Criminal Litigation syllabus of the Nigerian Law School. The discussion covers what happens when parties are absent, duties of prosecutor, defense counsel, registrar, and judge. The process of arraignment and plea bargaining in criminal trials are also covered. If there's a topic you'd like us to consider or any general feedback, you can drop it via bit.ly/fitpropcast. To take advantage of the Legal City 20@20 Deal and get your wigs and gowns at the best bargain, call them on 07062995699 and use the promo code 'FPP'. This offer is only valid for the first 20 people.
He was all set-up to be a college-educated ordained minister. And then life threw a few wrenches his way. He picked them up and used them as tools. Darius shares how he rebounded from a divorce, dropping out of college, dealing with depression and the Texas justice system. He's now a happily married teacher, pastor and husband. Darius' favorite song: For Every Mountain by Kurt Carr The Frontline episode on Plea Bargaining in the United States is here. About this podcast: In each episode, a Brother reflects on his life; explores the experience of being a Black man in America; shares his interactions with law enforcement; and answers the question "If America was a woman, what would you say to her?" Every interview starts with getting-to-know-you questions about favorites, accomplishments and then goes deeper. You won't find a collection of conversations with Black men like this anywhere else. Hear their wisdom. Host, Rahbin Shyne, is an author, educator, creative and avid half-marathon walker. Follow on Instagram @allthingshyne or on Facebook. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Interested in being a guest? Click here. Support the podcast.
Neal Jackson
Neal Jackson
What Are Criminal Justice Proceedings? Hopefully, once you find and hire a lawyer, you’ll have a trusted advocate. When it comes to criminal matters, unfortunately, finding and hiring a criminal defense attorney is only the start of a long and arduous path. The more a defendant learns about the challenges ahead, and the better he understands how he can prepare, the more likely he will be to conquer struggles that complicate life for so many that experience the criminal justice system. I don’t have precise statistics in front of me. Still, I don’t think anyone will argue that if federal prosecutors bring criminal charges against individuals, a sentencing hearing will follow more than six out of ten times. Before banging the gavel to signal finality, the judge frequently says: “I sentence you to the custody of the Attorney General.” Several years ago, a federal judge in the Southern District of California invited our team to lead a panel discussion for other judges in his district. They wanted us to help judges understand what happens after they sentence a person to prison. If federal judges don’t know what happens after they sentence a person, it’s fair to say that neither lawyers nor defendants know what to expect either. In fact, some defendants don’t even know how they got into the system. How does it Start: Relatively few Americans have more than a basic understanding of our nation's criminal justice system. They know that law enforcement officers arrest people, district attorneys prosecute many of those who are arrested, and some people who are convicted go to jail or prison. It's much more complicated than that, of course. Although I’m not a lawyer, I’ve done a lot of research to get a better understanding of the system, and I found an excellent resource in Modern Criminal Procedure, 9th Edition, by Yale Kamisar, et al, published by West Group, (St. Paul. Minn: 1999). It’s a great resource for anyone that wants to get a more thorough understanding of the system. Most people don’t need to read a legal treatise. The summary I provide below will give most defendants a better understanding of how the criminal justice machine works. That understanding may lead to more fluency, better communications, and better preparation for the journey ahead. Again, we’re writing for laymen, for people who want a brief glimpse of what to expect if charged with a felony. Start from the premise that our criminal justice system is designed to protect society. It doesn’t always seem that way for a defendant. When a defendant comes into the system, everything feels like a personal attack, and the complicated proceedings aren’t always easy to understand. Lawyers talk about substantive laws (the laws that congress passed) and about proceedings (the rules by which the system is supposed to operate). It isn’t a perfect system, because it has evolved over multiple decades, and it’s designed to operate at scale. A system designed to process more than 1 million people each year doesn’t look too closely at personal characteristics and circumstances. It’s much more like moving a cog through an elaborate machine. All branches of law enforcement work together to prosecute crimes. Just as some offenders will make every effort to evade detection and apprehension by law-enforcement officers, representatives of the criminal justice system will make every effort to convict a defendant. Many defendants complain that law enforcement officers and prosecutors operate outside the scope of the rules in order to get convictions. Unfortunately, complaining doesn’t solve any problems. Once a person comes into the system, it’s best to think methodically. We need to learn as much as possible, and then engineer our way to the best outcome. Throughout this book and course, we’ll offer insight that defendants may use—along with their counsel—to prepare. Practically speaking, defendants would be well advised to expect law enforcement officers and prosecutors to use every means available for them to achieve their ends. Ultimately, prosecutors want to solve crimes and convict. In a perfect world those representatives of justice would dot every "I" and cross every "T" as they follow the rules in both the letter and the spirit of the law. Years of working with society's felons, however, frequently causes seasoned law enforcement officers to develop cynical perspectives of humanity. Sometimes, to get the outcome they want, they cut corners. They may even threaten. Let me give an example from a client that our team is working with now. Sam is a healthcare professional. The prosecutor offered him an opportunity to plead guilty to a charge with a five-year cap. If Sam chose to exercise his right to a jury trial, the prosecutor threatened to bring charges against Sam’s wife, and to bring further charges that would expose Sam to more than 20 years in prison. Then, the prosecutor argued that Sam would have to agree to say that no one pressured, threatened, or induced him to take the plea. From Sam’s perspective, the proceeding is inherently unfair. He would like to have had an opportunity to argue for his innocence. But he could not afford to expose his wife to the threat of criminal charges. He felt threatened and pressured to take the deal. Rather than justice, Sam said the prosecutor wanted a conviction. Those who work in law enforcement tend to become ultra conservative. They may be rigid in their beliefs that people who are charged with crimes clearly did something wrong and ought to be punished. Such attitudes can result in offenders being charged with crimes that can result in convictions, as opposed to the offender being charged with precisely the crimes that the individual may have actually committed. It would be wise, I think, for those who become entangled with the criminal justice process to anticipate a system influenced much more by Machiavelli, pursuing victory regardless of methods, rather than a system influenced by teachings of more enlightened leaders that encourage forgiveness, compassion, and concern for the individual. The Structure: In compliance with our nation's Constitution, legislators elected to both houses of the U.S. Congress have played a significant role in establishing a body of federal laws that are supposed to govern the behavior of citizens. The Constitution also provides legislators from each individual state with authority to establish their own code of criminal laws for their state, and their own criminal justice processes for enforcing those laws statewide. Although the different jurisdictions frequently collaborate, our nation actually operates several different criminal justice systems: We have a system for the federal government, We have a system for each state, We have a system for the military, and We have another system for the District of Columbia. It's our responsibility as citizens to abide by these laws. When we do not, we subject ourselves to being charged with criminal offenses and experiencing the wrath of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement officers are supposed to follow strictly prescribed procedures when charging a citizen with wrongdoing. In addition to federal and state rules for criminal procedure, published judicial opinions may also have an impact on criminal procedures. Criminal procedures are complicated. They can be understood more easily when we think of the criminal justice system as a game. I use this metaphor for clarity, not to trivialize the conflict between accused and accuser. Offenders, or "defendants" act as opponents of law enforcement officers and prosecutors. Both sides want to win. The defendants want to be acquitted, or to receive the least restrictive sanction. On the other side, law enforcement officers and prosecutors want to convict. They frequently argue for defendants to receive severe sanctions, without consideration for individual characteristics or mitigating factors. A judge will make the ultimate decision. In this "game" of criminal justice, the judge acts as referee. Judges are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that all participants of the game follow procedures to ensure that due process is achieved. Although there are many ways this game may begin, it usually starts when someone reports a crime to a member of law enforcement. Once the Crime is Reported: The criminal justice process usually begins when a crime is reported or otherwise discovered by law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers may learn about a crime in any number of ways. They may observe a crime being committed; They may learn about it because someone reports it; They may learn about it through investigation or by interrogating others. Once law enforcement officers learn about a crime, it becomes a "reported crime" or a "known offense." Pre-Arrest Investigation Sometimes, as when law enforcement officers are present when a crime is being committed—or soon thereafter—the "investigation" begins with an on-scene arrest. Other times, as when law enforcement officers learn that a crime has been committed, but were not in a position to make an on-scene arrest, they have the responsibility of solving that crime. They therefore launch a reactive investigation, where the officers will attempt to figure out: Whether a crime was in fact committed, Who committed the crime, What evidence there is of guilt, and How to locate the offender to make an arrest. Proactive investigations, on the other hand, are aimed to solve crimes that are ongoing or that may take place in the future. These types of investigations place law enforcement officers in a position to uncover criminal activity, the specifics of which are not known, or where they do not have enough information to charge all whom may be participants in the crime. Another type of pre-arrest investigation includes the prosecutorial investigation, which is generally conducted by a prosecutor. The prosecutor has the power to convene a grand jury (see below for discussion on the grand jury) and, through the power of the grand jury issue a subpoena. Individuals who receive such a subpoena must appear before the grand jury and answer questions that the prosecutor poses in the criminal investigation. Since the person who received the subpoena does not have counsel present during the questioning, and the entire grand jury proceeding is orchestrated by a prosecutor, it has become routine for grand juries to rubber stamp the recommendations of the prosecutor. Arrest: An arrest, of course, is when the law enforcement officer takes a person into custody. Sometimes, the arrest occurs at the scene of a crime. In cases that evolved from reactive or proactive investigations, on the other hand, the officers will obtain an arrest warrant—usually from a magistrate judge—before taking the person into custody. In some cases, officers will allow the suspect to turn himself in. In other cases, law enforcement officers will make a spectacle. In those cases, the officers use an extreme show of force—frequently with weapons drawn—at an inconvenient time, like the break of dawn or during a person’s work hours. Booking: If the person was arrested publicly, the officers will search him. They may search his vehicle, home, or office. They’re looking for contraband, weapons, or evidence of a crime. Then they transport the suspect to a jail, a courthouse, or some other type of holding facility for further processing, or "booking." During the booking procedure, the officers will conduct clerical procedures to memorialize the arrest. They record fingerprints and photograph the suspect (the well-known mug shots). If it's a minor crime, authorities may release the suspect from the holding facility. If the alleged crime is more serious in nature, authorities may hold the suspect for several hours, or even days, until he can appear before a judge who will determine whether bail is appropriate. If the offender is held in lockup, it is likely that he will be ordered to undergo a strip search. Post-Arrest investigation: Immediately after the arrest, the post-arrest investigation begins. The first step is when the officers search the person—and possibly his vehicle, home, or office—for evidence that can be used against him. After that, law enforcement officers may conclude that little else needs to be done (in the event that they caught the suspect in the act), or they may continue with many of the same types of techniques used in reactive and proactive investigations, such as interviews and searches. Deciding to Charge: When law enforcement officers witness a crime, they make a decision on whether to charge the suspected offender. Then, after the individual has been processed through booking, superior officers may review the arrest and decide whether to allow it to proceed. If the law enforcement agency chooses to proceed with prosecution, the prosecutors will then review the charge. The prosecutor may interview the arresting officer and review the evidence to determine whether the case is worthy of a filing of the criminal charge. Reasons why a prosecutor may decline to file charges include: Insufficient evidence; Witness difficulties; Due process problems; Alternatives to prosecution; and Diversion programs that enable the suspect to avoid a criminal record. Even if the prosecutor initially chooses to charge an individual, he may change his decision. Later, he may determine that the charge is not justified or that a lesser charge is more appropriate. In those cases, the prosecutor would have to file a motion before the court detailing the prosecutor's reasons to forego prosecution. The prosecutor would use the same screening factors identified above to determine the appropriateness of such a motion. Filing the Complaint: In many cases, if the charges pass the prosecutor's screening, the next step will come when the prosecutor files the complaint, most likely with a magistrate judge. The complaint is usually a fairly brief document, concisely detailing the criminal allegations. When a complaint is used as the charging instrument, someone must sign the complaint under oath indicating that he or she believes the factual allegations of the complaint to be true. Usually it's the victim or the investigating officer who signs the complaint. With the filing of the complaint, the suspect officially becomes a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Review of the Arrest by Magistrate: Many jurisdictions appoint magistrate judges to take some of the workload away from trial judges. Among other things, the magistrate judges handle many of the pre-trial matters. After the prosecutor files the complaint with the court, but before the defendant's first appearance, for example, it frequently will be a magistrate judge who reviews the charges against the defendant. If the defendant was arrested without a warrant and remains in custody, the magistrate must determine whether probable cause exists for the defendant's continued detention. In the extremely rare instance that the judge finds that the prosecutor has not established probable cause, the prosecution either must produce more information or release the arrested person. First Appearance: With the filing of the complaint, the defendant is brought before the judge "without unnecessary delay." Several hours or several days may pass before the defendant sees a judge, depending on the circumstances. If a defendant is arrested late on a Friday afternoon, he may not see the judge until the following Monday. The first appearance is generally a brief proceeding in which the magistrate determines that the person named on the complaint is the person before the court. After the magistrate is convinced that the appropriate person is present, the judge will read the charges made against the defendant, identify the defendant's rights, and in felony cases, advise the defendant of the next step in the process, which is the preliminary hearing. The magistrate then sets a date for the preliminary hearing, which the defendant may choose to waive. The magistrate judge then will ask the defendant to enter a plea; if the defendant pleads not guilty, the judge will set a trial date. Defendants are entitled to have counsel present at every stage of all felony criminal justice proceedings. If the individual cannot afford counsel, the court will provide a court-appointed attorney. A substantial percentage of all felony defendants go through their criminal justice proceedings with court-appointed counsel. These attorneys may work for a public defender service, or they may be in private practice but make themselves available to represent a limited number of indigent defendants. As a practical matter, the indigent defendants who use court-appointed counsel do not have much choice as to which attorney represents them. Bail: If the defendant is in custody at the time of his first appearance, one of the most important functions of the proceeding is for the magistrate judge to determine whether bail is appropriate. Bail establishes the conditions under which the defendant can be released from confinement until his case is decided. If the magistrate judge agrees that bail is warranted in the case, he may require the defendant to post bail in cash, with a surety bond, or by signing over a deed to property. The judge also may accept the defendant's personal guarantee that he will present himself for trial. In general, the magistrate is expected to impose such bail conditions as appear reasonably necessary to assure that the defendant will make court appearances as scheduled throughout the criminal justice proceedings. There is a presumption that a defendant is entitled to bail. Unfortunately, in drug cases or other serious offenses, judges refuse to release a defendant on bail. The magistrate generally looks to the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, the defendant's risk of flight, and the defendant's ties to the community when deliberating over the appropriate bail conditions. Preliminary Hearing: After the first appearance, the next scheduled step is the preliminary hearing. Defendants who choose to plead guilty frequently waive the preliminary hearing. Some jurisdictions allow the prosecutor to bypass the preliminary hearing, which is yet another screening of the charge, by immediately obtaining a grand jury indictment. In jurisdictions that allow preliminary hearings, magistrate judge presides over this first step. Since this phase of the process is adversarial in nature, the defendant should have counsel present to represent him. Generally, during this proceeding, the prosecutor will provide witnesses and the defendant's counsel will have the opportunity to cross-examine. After listening to the proceeding, the magistrate judge will determine whether to advance the case to the next level—which either is a grand jury review or the filing of a criminal information or complaint. Grand Jury Review: In the federal system, all felony prosecutions require a grand jury review. The only exception is when the defendant waives this review and agrees to be charged with a criminal complaint or information. States vary in their requirements for charges. The primary function of the grand jury review is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed with a trial on the criminal charges. A number of randomly chosen citizens sit on the grand jury panel, usually between 12 and 23. Those grand jurors listen as the prosecution presents its case. The prosecution uses its subpoena power to call witnesses before the grand jury, then questions those witnesses under oath. Witnesses do not have the right to legal counsel during the grand jury proceeding, and there is no cross-examination. Accordingly, the proceeding is really a one-sided show for the prosecution. When the prosecution does persuade the grand jury that there is merit to the criminal charge, the grand jury returns an indictment. Although the grand jury is said to be a screening device, many in the legal profession ridicule it. Since defendants can’t speak on their own behalf, and targets may not even know that a prosecutor convened a grand jury, prosecutors have their way. They get to build arguments without giving the target an opportunity to respond. For that reason, experts say a prosecutor could use a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. When a grand jury does issue an indictment, that document is filed with the trial court, replacing the original complaint or accusatory instrument in the case. If a grand jury review was not sought, either because it was not required or it was waived, the prosecutor simply would file the criminal complaint or information with the trial court. The Arraignment on the Criminal Information, Complaint, or Indictment: After the accusatory instrument is filed with the trial court, the defendant is brought before the trial court to be informed of the charges against him. The trial court judge will ask the defendant how he pleads. Ordinarily, the options for the defendant are to plead guilty or not guilty. This procedure is known as arraigning the defendant. In most cases, defendants plead not guilty at the earliest stages. This strategy gives the defendant more time to examine the strength of the government's case. It also allows time for the possible negotiation of more favorable conditions under which the defendant will agree to plead guilty—as most defendants eventually do. Plea Bargaining and Proffers: Prosecutors want defendants to plead guilty. Ultimately, they want a conviction. Trials require substantial amounts of government time and resources. Further, the outcome of a trial is uncertain. Accordingly, prosecutors frequently grant concessions to induce defendants to plead guilty. For example, they may agree to dismiss certain charges, or they may agree not to prosecute a family member. Prosecutors want to avoid the time and expense of a trial. They may invite a defendant to proffer what he would show through trial, or the prosecutorial team may proffer what it could prove during a trial. All of those negotiations are designed to come to an agreement that would avoid a trial. This procedure is frequently called plea bargaining. The prosecutor has the authority to charge a defendant with crimes that carry certain sentences. They also have the ability to recommend certain sentences within the statute or guideline range. In the end, the judge imposes a sentence. Although the judge may listen to the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation, prosecutors do not have the power to bind a judge’s decision. The vast majority of defendants enter guilty pleas. Frequently, defendants that plead guilty spend much of their time in prison second-guessing their decision. Experience convinces us that defendants who know they are guilty are vastly better off: To accept complete responsibility, To express remorse, To plead guilty at the earliest possible stage, and To work toward an effective sentence-mitigation strategy. Like all decisions where liberty is at stake, deciding whether to plead guilty is a legal decision that must be made with the guidance of counsel. Pre-Trial Motions: After the arraignment, attorneys for the defendant may choose to file multiple pretrial motions before the trial court in an effort to help them develop a better understanding of the government's evidence. These motions may: Attack the charging instrument—either the criminal information or the grand jury process; Ask for an order directing the government to disclose evidence; Request the court to suppress evidence that the defendant believes was obtained in violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights. The Trial If the case has not been dismissed, and the defendant has not pled guilty, the next step in the criminal justice procedure is the trial. Defendants have a right to a speedy trial, but the defendant may waive that right. The prosecutor may look for excusable opportunities to extend the pretrial time period. Both sides of the adversarial process look for every opportunity to prepare their case. In a typical jurisdiction, it is reasonable to expect five to ten months to pass from the time of arrest until the time the trial begins. Some trials may require only a few hours, others several weeks. Complicated cases may stretch into several months—or even years—before both sides present their closing arguments. Although some defendants choose a bench trial, with only a judge to determine one's guilt or innocence, all felony defendants have the right to a jury trial. In a jury trial, a group of randomly selected citizens is charged with the responsibility of listening to the evidence that the trial judge allows to be presented. The jurors are supposed to presume that the defendant is not guilty of the charges until the trial judge instructs them to begin deliberating on whether the prosecution has proven its case. The trial begins with the voir dire process, which is the questioning of jurors. The judge, and in some jurisdictions the attorneys play a role in questioning the prospective jurors. During voir dire, both the defense and prosecution will try to filter prospective jurors that may be biased against their side. The theory may hold that both sides are seeking justice. In reality, the prosecution is seeking a conviction and the defendant is seeking an acquittal. Each side is looking for the best group of jurors to deliver the desired verdict. The judge will determine how many prospective jurors each lawyer can remove from the potential jury. Once the jury has been chosen and sworn, the prosecution and the defense may begin with an opening argument. After opening arguments, the prosecution will begin presenting its case, usually with live witnesses whom the defense may then cross-examine. After the prosecution rests, the defense will have an opportunity to present its case and the prosecutor can cross-examine its witnesses. Then, after both sides have rested, the prosecutor will make a closing argument. The defendant's attorney will have an opportunity to make a closing argument. The prosecutor gets the last word, though, in response to the defense attorney's closing argument. Finally, the judge will read a set of instructions to the jury. Once the judge releases the jury to the jury room, members are supposed to start considering all of the evidence as they deliberate on whether the prosecution has proven its case. To obtain a conviction, each member of the jury must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the jury reaches a verdict, and it’s announced in court, the judge concludes the trial. If it’s a guilty verdict, whether after a trial or as a result of a plea, a series of post-conviction proceedings will follow. In the next chapter, we’ll offer insight on post-conviction proceedings in the criminal justice system.
"Justice" in America and the western countries. Legal fictions, such as, 2nd degree murder, pleading down, plea bargaining, and "justice." On the eve of Nevada's Democrat Caucuses, Joe Biden hopes to come up big and stay in the race, but good help is hard to find. Democrat pandering and demagoguing..."the most committed constituency...!" The Democrat "dream team" presidential ticket? Surely you have to be kidding. What the future holds for America in the Middle-East and Central Asia.
Our guest Atty. Patrick Tomasiewicz of the Hartford law firm of Fazzano and Tomasiewicz talked about numerous aspects of contemporary criminal law that people often don’t understand fully, such as Victim’s Rights, Diversionary Programs, Plea Bargaining, Prosecutorial Discretion, and the Sexual Offender Registry. Listener calls included a man who called in to tell us how the advice we can given him on a previous show about dealing with unauthorized robo-callers and merchants turned out very well for him. Also, a woman had questions about the tax consequences of a survivor “inheriting” money from a bank account of which she was the joint owner
The Criminal Justice Section has created a new Plea Bargain Task Force. The Task Force begins its investigation into the current state of the plea bargaining in the American criminal justice system and problems like the innocence issue.Want to get involved with the Criminal Justice Section? Join us! https://www.americanbar.org/membership/join-now
For this episode, Ty and Daphne discuss current events, news, and Ava DuVernay’s When They See Us. They begin by catching up (00:30) and discussing “Oh Lawd” news (7:09), including a vigilante shooting (“citizen’s arrest”) in Clayton County, Georgia (7:45), a lab owner falsifying drug and paternity tests (12:30), a strip club loving Catholic school principal (16:37), the NYPD “Rap” unit (22:25), and the Virginia Beach mass shooting (33:37). Ty and Daphne then focus their attention on the Central Park Five case and Ava DuVernay’s When They See Us. Specifically, they discuss their reactions to the Netflix miniseries (39:00), research on false confessions (45:22), tips on interacting with police during an interrogation (47:15), the serial rapist responsible for the Central Park jogger rape (49:30), and updates on the Central Park Five and the individuals responsible for their prosecution (50:40). Resources: George Zimmerman 2.0/Vigilante Shooting- https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/woman-who-allegedly-pursued-and-killed-man-after-hit-and-run-can-be-released-on-bond-judge-rules/85-b4710304-f2a0-4aea-b7bc-93a4d8fde637 Lab Owner Arrested for Falsifying Results of Drug Tests - https://www.theroot.com/lab-owner-arrested-for-falsifying-results-of-drug-tests-1834753568?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=theroot_facebook&utm_campaign=sharebar&fbclid=IwAR1a1aLseaXVAO6OdTk2IYAU7fOmX789KInsPegGZnDgzPOsb7P0uoR47Yc Amazon selling houses for 20k https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-is-selling-entire-houses-for-less-than-20000-with-free-shipping-2019-05-22 Virginia Beach Shooting - https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/02/us/virginia-beach-shooting-sunday/index.html The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty- https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1116&context=clsops_papers The Innocent Defendant’s Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study of Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2071397 What Does an Innocent Man Have to Do to Go Free? Plead Guilty. - https://www.propublica.org/article/what-does-an-innocent-man-have-to-do-alford-plea-guilty
Links Invisibilia, S05E02 - Post, Shoot (NPR) Plea Bargaining in the United States (Wikipedia) But in this era of mass incarceration — when our nation’s prison population has quintupled in a few decades partly as a result of the war on drugs and the “get tough” movement — these rights are, for the overwhelming majority of people hauled into courtrooms across America, theoretical. More than 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried before a jury. Most people charged with crimes forfeit their constitutional rights and plead guilty. – Michelle Alexander, Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System (NYTimes) Parens Patriae (Wikipedia) Van Jones & CT Governor Ned Lamont Lead Criminal Justice Reform Conversation at Quinnipiac (YouTube) Serial Podcast Van Jones
Honorable Carlos Mendoza is the United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. Judge Mendoza joins us on the podcast to discuss the challenges of judging. We discuss charging policy, sentencing, plea bargaining , The First Step Act and more.Want to get involved with the Criminal Justice Section? Join us! https://www.americanbar.org/membership/join-now
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Plea Bargaining as: “[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.” Plea Bargaining as a concept dates farther back than the American justice system itself. However, over the past few decades it has occurred with more and more frequency to reach its’ current unprecedented level in our criminal justice system. Today, over 95 percent of criminal convictions are a result of Plea Bargaining, which has contributed to an evolving and controversial national debate over whether Plea Bargaining has gone too far. The positives of Plea Bargaining are apparent. It is a much more efficient process than juries, and a much more inexpensive process than trials. However, some opponents of plea bargaining point to the dangerous potential for coercion, insisting that the imbalance of power between prosecutor and defendant can often lead to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, some criticize Plea Bargaining because it infringes upon the right of the American citizen to participate in the jury process. The debates over the correct response to the frequency of Plea Bargaining will continue to grow as the effects are felt by the entirety of the American Criminal Justice System.Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMr. Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, ShreckProf. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Plea Bargaining as: “[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.” Plea Bargaining as a concept dates farther back than the American justice system itself. However, over the past few decades it has occurred with more and more frequency to reach its’ current unprecedented level in our criminal justice system. Today, over 95 percent of criminal convictions are a result of Plea Bargaining, which has contributed to an evolving and controversial national debate over whether Plea Bargaining has gone too far. The positives of Plea Bargaining are apparent. It is a much more efficient process than juries, and a much more inexpensive process than trials. However, some opponents of plea bargaining point to the dangerous potential for coercion, insisting that the imbalance of power between prosecutor and defendant can often lead to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, some criticize Plea Bargaining because it infringes upon the right of the American citizen to participate in the jury process. The debates over the correct response to the frequency of Plea Bargaining will continue to grow as the effects are felt by the entirety of the American Criminal Justice System.Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitMr. Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, ShreckProf. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has observed that “criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials.”Although nowhere mentioned in the text of the Constitution, plea bargaining has become the default mechanism for resolving criminal charges in the United States. Indeed, some 95 percent of criminal convictions today are obtained through plea bargains, which raises a number of serious concerns, including why so few people choose to exercise their hallowed and hard-won right to a jury trial. When one considers the many tools available to prosecutors to encourage defendants to accept plea offers, together with the incentive to resolve as many cases as efficiently as possible, one cannot help but ask how many plea agreements are truly voluntary and how many are the result of irresistible coercion. Are there constitutional or ethical limits on coercive plea bargaining, and if so, are they being properly enforced? And what should we make of an institution that has practically eliminated the criminal jury trial and with it the Framers' painstaking efforts to ensure citizen participation in the administration of justice?We will discuss these and other important questions raised by the evolution of plea bargaining within our justice system. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This podcast, with defense attorney James R. Doerr, examines the use of plea agreements in Illinois. Discussion focuses on the use of plea bargains to avoid trial as well as the benefits and criticisms of these agreements.
Today, more than 95 percent of criminal convictions in the United States are obtained through plea bargains. As the Supreme Court observed in 2012, “criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials.” Compared with jury trials, plea bargains are efficient and inexpensive, and they free up resources that might otherwise be devoted to securing convictions in cases where the defendant’s guilt is not seriously in doubt.But plea bargaining has a dark side as well. Given the imbalance of resources between prosecutors and most defendants, together with the array of tools that prosecutors can bring to bear in any given case, such as mandatory minimum sentences, charge-stacking, and witness inducements, it is fair to ask how many guilty pleas are truly voluntary. A growing body of evidence suggests that false confessions may not be nearly as rare as we would hope, and indeed the specter of coercion casts a shadow over the entire plea-bargaining process. Finally, there is the question of citizen participation in the criminal justice system, which Judge Joseph Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia cited repeatedly in a trio of decisions, culminating in the announcement that he will no longer accept plea agreements except when there are truly extenuating, case-specific circumstances. Our panelists will discuss the pros and cons of that policy and consider what the effect might be on America’s criminal justice system—and the fate of individual defendants—if other judges began adopting it as well. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today's episode takes a deep dive into two developments concerning the right to an abortion in the U.S., followed by our continuing discussion on plea bargaining with listener comments from prosecutors, public defenders, the U.S. judiciary, and even international listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with an in-depth examination of the so-called "gag rule" just proposed by Trump's Department of Health and Human Services. Is it really a gag rule? (Yes.) After that, we look into the Supreme Court's recent decision not to grant certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, allowing an 8th Circuit decision to stand that, in turn, denied a preliminary injunction blocking a restrictive Arkansas abortion law, HB1394. Is this a bad sign? (Yes.) After that, we return to the subject of plea bargaining that's been a hot topic in our inbox for weeks, capped off by the Iowa Supreme Court's discussion of the issue in Schmidt v. Iowa. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links For context on the Trump HHS gag rule, you can read Title X, 42 USC § 300 et seq. Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, 864 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2017), denied a preliminary injunction, allowing HB1394 to take effect. You can read the cert petition here. If you're feeling good about Schmidt v. Iowa and need to be reminded that "actual innocence" is not a ground for federal habeas corpus relief, check out Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
The problem with plea bargains. My book Writing Your Own Best Story: Addiction + Living Hope, is available on Amazon. My friend Aaron's organization is called "A Brighter Way" and we are also both involved with Michigan's Nation Outside. The Judge Rakoff quote was found in this New York Review of Books article. A Few Good Men was an American drama about a lawyer fighting the court-martial of two Guantanamo Bay Marines starring Tom Cruise and Demi Moore. The Judge John Kane quote was from this Marshall Project article about Plea Bargaining and innocence. Michelle Alexander is the author of the very influential and popular book, "The New Jim Crow." There is a lot of evidence about why Innocent People Accept Plea Bargains. The Marshall Project piece above is a good summary. We also mention this article from the Atlantic Monthly several times during the podcast. Professor Jenia Turner's quote comes from her extensive article on plea bargaining. Most of the alternatives that we discuss come from the following articles: Cynthia Alkon's Law Review Article, John Rappaport's article on unbundling rights, and the other articles cited above. More extensive notes will be available soon on my blog OnPirateSatellite.com
The Opposite of a Nuclear Bomb, by Arundhati Roy, Nuclear Weapons Ban, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Amazon Key, Amazon HQ Welfare, Anti-BDS Legislation, Racial Bias in Plea Bargaining, Survivalist Stash, NRA Country, Net Neutrality Comment Bots, Puerto Rico, Southern Local Elections, Tuition Free College, The Corporate Welfare Song by Anne Feeney
In this episode of Aider & Abettor, Avi and Sajid are joined by retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Ron Del Pozzo, someone who they both appeared in front of during their public defense careers before the Judge’s retirement. In the first segment (2:20), they all discuss the nuances of plea bargaining in criminal cases including the relative power of judges and prosecutors during the process. The conversation dovetailed into reflections on the interplay of bail, plea bargaining and outcomes for indigent people compared to the more affluent accused of crimes. They brainstorm ways to help level the playing field and to achieve more fair dispositions for all. In the second segment (42:30), Avi, Sajid and Judge Del Pozzo trade thoughts on the trial of Brock Turner, his sentence and the effort to recall Judge Aaron Persky. Judge Del Pozzo shares about what it was like to run for Judge against Persky, his thoughts about Turner’s sentence and his view of Perksy’s reputation on the bench. They question the prudence of the recall effort and discuss the recall’s potential consequences. In the last segment (1:19:38), they each share their “things,” including new criminal justice legislation in California about drug sales priors and sex offenders, the Warriors’ relationship with San Quentin Prison and advice from Judge Del Pozzo on how to counter hate with love. The intro, outro, and transitions are by @leerosevere. P.S. This episode was recorded at the Roosevelt Community Center in San Jose and was videotaped by Chris Knight and Kimy Martinez of StabbyDoll Productions. It was a very cool experience to work with Chris and Kimy. Please check out the video of the episode here: https://youtu.be/N-BYk8bb0_w
New York Prosecutors Training Institute - NYPTI Practice Tips. This week we cover youthful offender sentencing and plea bargaining www.NYPTI.org
An examination of the value and use of plea bargaining after the finale of the Kodak Black case. A brief examination of whether it is a constituional abuse.
I SAID IF IM INNOCENT, I AINT PLEAING.. HE SAID, 'not necessarily the smartest move' What to do and not to do
“When the Negroes were freed and the whole South was convinced of the impossibility of free Negro labor, the first and almost universal device was to use the courts as a means of reenslaving the blacks. It was not then a question of crime, but rather one of color, that settled a man’s conviction on almost any charge. Thus Negroes came to look upon courts as instruments of injustice and oppression, and upon those convicted in them as martyrs and victims.”--W.E.B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folk (1903) That's how philosophy professor Dr. Brady Heiner opens his article, The Procedural Entrapment of Mass Incarceration:Prosecution, Race, and the Unfinished Project of American Abolition. The passage from 1903 seems eerily informed by today's mass incarceration, the school-to-prison pipeline, and the over-policing of black neighborhoods. Dr. Brady HeinerUniversity of California Fullerton Dr. Brady Heiner We've talked before about how African Americans and Latinos and over-represented in the prison population, and the reasons why are complex. But Heiner focuses his work on a particular one we admit had never occurred to us: plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is when a defendant is facing multiple serious charges, and rather than go to trial (and possibly be convicted of all of them), they choose to plead guilty to a lesser charge, forgoing a trial. Heiner says this forfeiture of due process does more harm than good - especially to people of color accused of crimes. We knew plea bargaining was widespread (as does anyone who's ever had speeding reduced to "faulty equipment," or watched any lawyer show), but we had no idea the extent of the practice: 95% of criminal convictions never go to trial. Heiner will speak at UofL this Monday afternoon. He joins us on the show this week to offer some radical suggestions for upending the system, and to answer a big question: What would happen if every defendant demanded a trial? In our Juicy Fruit segment this week, we take on the comparisons between Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks (yes, people have really made those comparisons). And we scratch our heads at an unlikely Davis apologist: Madonna's openly-gay brother, Christopher Ciccone. We also learn some secrets of top chefs (that bread on your table at dinner is probably left over from someone else's table at lunch), find out what graysexual means, and have a rousing debate on the health and safety of the 5-second rule.
The Bill of Rights guarantees a trial by jury to every American accused of a crime. So why do more than 95% of defendants plead guilty, often despite the fact they're not?
Mike talks with Ohio State Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly ( http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/SCO/justices/donnelly/ ) about reforming the plea bargaining process, the Michael Flynn case and “legal fictions”, the Paul Manafort case and sentencing guidelines, why we need sentencing databases, and lots more! * Truth or Consequences: Making the Case for Transparency and Reform in the Plea Negotiation Process ( https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/91933/OSJCL_V17N2_423.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 ) (PDF) * State Supreme Court rejects truth-in-sentencing rule ( https://www.dispatch.com/article/20160115/NEWS/301159652 ) * Florida's broken sentencing system ( http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/sentencing/ ) *Be part of the discussion* on the Politics Guys ‘ BipartisanPolitics ( https://www.reddit.com/r/BipartisanPolitics/ ) ' community on Reddit. *Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible*. If you're interested in supporting the podcast, go to patreon.com/politicsguys ( https://www.patreon.com/politicsguys ) or politicsguys.com/support ( http://www.politicsguys.com/support ). Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
