The trial that never ends comes to an end.

[Stonewall]

How easy is it to get off a jury? I was summoned once but was a student at the time, and that's an exemption. But otherwise? I know my sister in law, who has a pretty good job (head of accounting for a City department) and kids, was not exempt from a fairly lengthy, high-profile case in Toronto some years ago. Or did she not try hard enough?

You have to truly understand the system enough to game it like that.  People who take the obvious approach and make ridiculous statements or antics often find themselves serving time or paying fines for contempt of court.  Or, you might find a lawyer like me who knows that he has a drop dead loser of a case, is using the trial as a "long plea" and selects you specifically because you're trying so hard to get out of it just to spite you.  If I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you.

[Barrister]

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

I've never understood the prosecutor mentality of choosing to take your shot at trial on a weak case and take the substantial risk of an acquittal as opposed to compromising and have the perp serve a lesser prison on a conviction to a lesser charge.  The attitude reminds me very much of what Woody Harrelson says to Wesley Snipes in the movie, White Men Can't Jump.  "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win."  I guess I just don't understand that mindset.

Because a bad plea stinks.  It's a perversion of justice.  I've seen it happen - take a "simple assault" on facts that are obviuosly a sexual assault.  There was a huge outcry in Whitehorse over a plea to careless driving (a ticketable matter) instead of dangerous driving causing death.

It's because the public will never truly understand why you took a bad deal - only that you took it.  You can talk till you are blue in the face about the weaknesses in your case, but it won't matter.

It's not that I'm opposed to deals, or taking pleas to lower charges.  You only have to see me do my thing in docket to learn that.  But rather what you take a plea to has to bear some relationship to actually what happened.

And remember - as prosecutors we neither win or lose.  So we're not supposed to be afraid of an acquittal if that is the right result.

so a case like this - I'd absolutely be trying to take a plea - but on manslaughter.

[viper37]

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant.  Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)?  I didn't think this was generally public matter.

[Barrister]

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant.  Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)?  I didn't think this was generally public matter.

Plea negotiations are privileged and not disclosed.

[Capetan Mihali]

I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty."       

On both counts and both lesser included offenses. 

[DGuller]

I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty."       

On both counts and both lesser included offenses. 

[Capetan Mihali]

I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty."       

On both counts and both lesser included offenses. 

To be clear I didn't do all that much work on this case and certainly didn't try it without a law license, but an acquittal is still an amazing experience when you've been sitting on that side of the aisle.   

[Stonewall]

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

I've never understood the prosecutor mentality of choosing to take your shot at trial on a weak case and take the substantial risk of an acquittal as opposed to compromising and have the perp serve a lesser prison on a conviction to a lesser charge.  The attitude reminds me very much of what Woody Harrelson says to Wesley Snipes in the movie, White Men Can't Jump.  "You'd rather look good and lose than look bad and win."  I guess I just don't understand that mindset.

Because a bad plea stinks.  It's a perversion of justice.  I've seen it happen - take a "simple assault" on facts that are obviuosly a sexual assault.  There was a huge outcry in Whitehorse over a plea to careless driving (a ticketable matter) instead of dangerous driving causing death.

It's because the public will never truly understand why you took a bad deal - only that you took it.  You can talk till you are blue in the face about the weaknesses in your case, but it won't matter.

It's not that I'm opposed to deals, or taking pleas to lower charges.  You only have to see me do my thing in docket to learn that.  But rather what you take a plea to has to bear some relationship to actually what happened.

And remember - as prosecutors we neither win or lose.  So we're not supposed to be afraid of an acquittal if that is the right result.

so a case like this - I'd absolutely be trying to take a plea - but on manslaughter.

In other words, you don't do deals like that because they are politically difficult.  If the deal is the right result, why should you be afraid of the public's reaction to it?  I mean, if you're not afraid of the acquittal, which in many cases would be the unjust result, why would you be afraid of the conviction on a lesser when such a result would be just?  Your argument is a cop out to making difficult decisions. 

Similarly, if you think that an acquittal is the right result, you have zero business prosecuting the case in the first place.  Putting someone's future in the hands of a jury and then arguing to them for a conviction when you think an acquittal is warranted is a perversion of justice.  As a prosecutor, you only prosecute the cases that you have a good faith belief that the defendant is guilty and you have a high likelihood of conviction.

[Josephus]

If I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you.

You're getting paid good money. I have to take the bus. 

[DGuller]

I just got to sit in on a criminal trial from start to finish, and had the rare privilege of hearing the two most beautiful words in the English language pronounced by the jury: "Not Guilty."       

On both counts and both lesser included offenses. 

To be clear I didn't do all that much work on this case and certainly didn't try it without a law license, but an acquittal is still an amazing experience when you've been sitting on that side of the aisle.   

I assumed you were the one being acquitted. 

[Stonewall]

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant.  Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)?  I didn't think this was generally public matter.

In high profile cases, however, plea negotiations often become public.  In fact, often times a prosecutor will charge a strong homicide as a death penalty case in order to facilitate and force a defendant to plea to life imprisonment, but guarantee that death is taken off the table.  If there were any plea negotiations in the Casey Anthony case, I'm sure we'll be hearing about them.  Since they were looking to fry her from day 1, I doubt any serious negotiations took place in this case.

[Stonewall]

If I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you.

You're getting paid good money.

[Razgovory]

You have to truly understand the system enough to game it like that.  People who take the obvious approach and make ridiculous statements or antics often find themselves serving time or paying fines for contempt of court.  Or, you might find a lawyer like me who knows that he has a drop dead loser of a case, is using the trial as a "long plea" and selects you specifically because you're trying so hard to get out of it just to spite you.  If I have to be there trying loser cases, so do you.

Is being insane enough of a reason to be taken off a jury?  I've never been called up.

[Barrister]

In other words, you don't do deals like that because they are politically difficult.  If the deal is the right result, why should you be afraid of the public's reaction to it?  I mean, if you're not afraid of the acquittal, which in many cases would be the unjust result, why would you be afraid of the conviction on a lesser when such a result would be just?  Your argument is a cop out to making difficult decisions. 

Similarly, if you think that an acquittal is the right result, you have zero business prosecuting the case in the first place.  Putting someone's future in the hands of a jury and then arguing to them for a conviction when you think an acquittal is warranted is a perversion of justice.  As a prosecutor, you only prosecute the cases that you have a good faith belief that the defendant is guilty and you have a high likelihood of conviction.

That's not what I said at all.

I'm against making a deal just to make a deal, because that would lead to the wrong result.  Take this case - you said there should've been a plea to neglect of a child.  That doesn't fit the facts.  Either mom was involved in the death or she was not.  That's quite a bit different than taking a plea to a charge that does fit the facts.  You can't plead a murder down to an assault with a weapon.

In a case like this the recidivism rate is virtually zero.  It's not something where we're trying to get into treatment no matter what just so it doesn't happen again.  This case is pure, 100% public denunciation.

And you are of course correct - if the case simply is not there, then you have no business running it.  And if the case truely is crap I would rather stand up and withdraw it than take a bad deal just so I can get "something".  And I have done that plenty of times as well.

But when the case is up in the air?  Where it could go either way?  Then I think the public interest is best served by a public trial, rather than taking a bad deal so I can get 'something'.



But not my critique is solely on 'bad deals', where the charge pled to has only passing familiarity to the underlying facts.  A plea to a lesser included is fine.  A plea to only the elements that you can prove is fine.  A plea with a lower than average sentence to account for the uncertainties of trial is fine.  But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, don't call it a chicken because you're trying to close a file.

[Barrister]

The purpose of the criminal justice system is (should be) to meet out justice to people who break the law.  I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that this chick was involved somehow in her daughter's death.  Either through the killing, negligent parenting, or in the coverup.  Given that as a starting point, and combined with the utter lack of demonstrable causation, does it not make sense to make the most of a bad situation and get whatever time you can get instead of going in guns blazing?

maybe there were negotiations and they were rejefected by the defendant.  Are we always informed of any plea bargain offered by the D.A. (or Crown prosecutors in Canada)?  I didn't think this was generally public matter.

In high profile cases, however, plea negotiations often become public.  In fact, often times a prosecutor will charge a strong homicide as a death penalty case in order to facilitate and force a defendant to plea to life imprisonment, but guarantee that death is taken off the table.  If there were any plea negotiations in the Casey Anthony case, I'm sure we'll be hearing about them.  Since they were looking to fry her from day 1, I doubt any serious negotiations took place in this case.

Elements might be made in public.  I have now twice been in murder trials where, in front of the jury, the defendant offers to plead guilty to manslaughter

But as a general rule - plea offers should never be disclosed.