UArizona Wk 6 Why a Prosecutor Would Offer Defendant Plea Agreement Discussion
There are various factors in making decisions to charge an individual with a crime. There are also stages and rules of trial by jury and rules of entering a guilty plea.
This forum asks you to examine plea agreements and the trial process.
Please thoroughly discuss each of the following:
Discuss some of the reasons why a prosecutor would offer a defendant a plea agreement. Discuss your thoughts on plea bargaining. Discuss the constitutional requirements of entering a guilty plea.
What is the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Do you think the prosecutor is given too much discretion to determine the charges placed on a defendant? Do you think the prosecutor is given too much discretion to offer a defendant a plea agreement? Discuss why and remember to support your position.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Based on the facts provided to you in week 1 discussion forum #2, the investigation report, the confession by Mayo and the witness statements made by Dietz and Joe answer the following:
1) If you were the defense attorney representing Mayo would you try to negotiate a plea agreement on his behalf or go to trial?
2) The prosecutor is given a lot of discretion in the criminal court process. If you were the prosecutor would you try to negotiate a plea agreement or go to trial? Discuss why and make sure to support your position. Also, discuss the pros and cons to each.
POST
Week 1:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff VS.Scott Mayo, DefendantTYPE OF CASE-CriminalSUMMARY OF FACTSScott Mayo worked as a bartender at The Local Watering Hole. One night at work, Scott got into an argument with Basil Scowen. Mayo owed Scowen $1500.00. The argument heated up and, after Scowen picked up a beer bottle threateningly and appeared to be intoxicated, Mayo grabbed a pistol kept behind the bar and fired at Scowen, killing him. Mayo says Scowen told him, “I am going to kill you,” and what he believed was imminent danger from Scowen. Mayo was placed under arrest. He was not read his rights. He was transported to the local county jail. The prosecution witnesses are the police officer, who came to the scene and took statements from Mayo, and a frequent bar customer, Dawn Dietz, who witnessed some of what happened. The defense witnesses are the defendant, Mayo, and Joe, “the fireman”, who was outside and saw some of the action through the window while sitting on the patio. Based on the facts provided to you, if you are the prosecutor, what will you charge Mayo with using your own state law? Please discuss why in your response, providing a detailed analysis of how you reach your decision on the charge(s).
Thank you!Part 1:Dario:Discuss some of the reasons why a prosecutor would offer a defendant a plea agreement. Discuss your thoughts on plea bargaining. Discuss the constitutional requirements of entering a guilty plea.There are many reasons why a prosecutor would offer a defendant a plea agreement. It is tool at the disposal of the prosecutor that can be a double-edge sword in regards to sending a guilty defendant to jail without the need to waste many resources at a trial; however, it is possible that some innocent adult and adolescent defendants take guilty pleas due to little understanding of the legal system and bad decision making (Helm, Reyna, Franz, & Novick, 2018). Regardless of the reason why a defendant takes a guilty plea, a prosecutor will offer a plea agreement if the defendant can take down a bigger fish in the sea. For example, a small-time drug dealer with knowledge of a major drug distributor might get a plea agreement with less jail time if he/she agrees to testify against the distributor. Also, another reason for a plea agreement would be overcrowded prisons, courts with too many trials, and the prosecutor having overwhelming evidence, wherein the defense would rather take a plea deal than risk a more severe sentence by a judge or jury.Plea bargaining has mix results and therefore my thoughts on such deals are mixed. For example, in the case of a defendant agreeing to testify against a defendant who committed a more outrageous crime is acceptable; however, whenever a defendant who has committed crimes against children takes a plea agreement, that is where I think plea deals cross the line.Constitutional requirements of entering a guilty plea, a court must have jurisdiction. The defendant must be competent and understand the consequences of the guilty plea. Finally, the guilty plea must be voluntary.What is the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each.The difference between a bench trial and a jury trial is that in a bench trial, a judge makes most of the decision, including the verdict of whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. On the other hand, a jury trial, a judge is present to guide the trial; however, the decision of guilt is decided by the jury upon review of evidentiary exhibits submitted by both the prosecutor and the defense. A jury trial’s advantages include being tried by your peers who might be swayed by a silver tongue defense attorney. On the other hand, a disadvantage of jury trial includes the jury not relating to the defendant or having some bias due to the severity of the crime committed in their community. On the other hand, a bench trial’s advantages include a shorter trial. A disadvantage of a bench trial is that one person, the judge decides the defendant’s fate.Do you think the prosecutor is given too much discretion to determine the charges placed on a defendant? Do you think the prosecutor is given too much discretion to offer a defendant a plea agreement? Discuss why and remember to support your position.The role of the prosecutor is to ensure citizens answer to the courts for violations for which they have committed. In their role, prosecutors represent the people, hence when a defendant answers to the courts, one will see People of the State Vs Defendant. As representatives of the people, I do not think too much discretion is given to prosecutors to determine charges because there are checks and balances in place in the judicial system to ensure defendants are properly charged. Also, in many cases, prosecutors charge defendants as per the thinking of the community they represent. Some communities will throw the book at defendants, while others will be more lenient. Regarding prosecutor discretion to offer a defendant a plea agreement, I believe there needs to be more checks and balances in place. For example, there have been cases that I have witnessed where the outcome was determined by backroom deals of prosecutors and defense teams.DarioReferencesHelm, R. K., Reyna, V. F., Franz, A. A., & Novick, R. Z. (2018). Too Young to Plead? Risk, rationaliMichael:There are numerous cases that prosecutors are presented with on a regular basis. With these large numbers of cases it can be an impossible task to see every case that is presented go to trial. Plea bargains are extraordinarily common in the American legal system, accounting for roughly 90% of all criminal cases, (Findlaw, n.d.). Plea bargains also help to complete the vast majority of cases presented in a timely manner which in-turn is economically cost-effective. Trying every case in a traditional manner would create backlog and would most likely take years for a case to be completed. In order for the court to accept a guilty plea the defendant must know the basic facts of the case. Avoidance of coercion and to accept the plea in a voluntary manner is also a requirement.When a judge hears an entire case and decides on a verdict afterward in known as a bench trial. A jury trial is individuals selected from the community forming a panel to decide a verdict. Cases involving civil proceedings usually utilizes a bench trial. An example of this would be a divorce. The Sixth Amendment gives individuals a right to trial by jury.Bench trials are often less time-consuming then jury trials and they may be less complicated. Bench trials are decided by one person rather than a panel of individuals which could be a disadvantage to the defendant of the case.Jury trials are heard by a panel of individuals from the community which may feel sympathetic to the defendant and the verdict must be a unanimous one. Jury trials can be more time-consuming than a bench trial. A jury may not understand the complexity of a case which could be a disadvantage. A juror may have bias although they are meant to be impartial.Prosecutors have power to either accept or refuse cases that are presented to them. There is a large amount of cases that a prosecutor must evaluate and decide that there is enough evidence to make a valid attempt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Plea bargaining can efficiently control the amount of cases presented. It can also help to decrease the case load.ReferencesPlea Bargains: In Depth, Findlaw Retrieved 11 February 2020, from https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/plea-bargains-in-depth.htmlMatthew:Plea bargains are used frequently when deliberating criminal hearings throughout the United States. A plea bargain occurs when the prosecutor and the defending lawyer come to an agreement, outside of a normal trial. (Strutin, 2013) Plea bargains are often offered for several reasons, one of which may be the fact that the prosecutor is not 100% confident in witness testimony or evidence that has been collected. On the other hand however, a defense attorney may feel the prosecution has a strong case where if it were to go to trial, they may lose each charge being tried. Speaking on behalf on the constitutionality of plea bargains, it must be made clear that the defendant acknowledges their guilty plea as well as acknowledges what exactly they are forfeiting. (Strutin, 2013). It is just as important to ensure as a prosecutor that the plea was not made under duress or coerced, which would be a violation of the Constitution. There are two separate types of trials, bench trials and jury trials. The main difference between a bench trial and jury trial is the deciding authority. In a bench trial, a judge is the deciding entity, while in a jury trial, a panel of jurors will deliberate evidence and come to a collective decision based upon evidence provided by the prosecutor and the defense of the defendant and their lawyer. As a prosecutor, the advantage of having a bench trial means you only have to provide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to on single person, the judge. Likewise as a defendant, they must prove ANY doubt to be found not guilty of a crime. Whereas a prosecutor must provide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a panel of jurors, and much the opposite as a defendant. I believe most prosecutors act accordingly when processing charges, and applying all that are applicable. Unfortunately in most cases, prosecutors will charge every criminal violation applicable knowing that some charges may be dismissed if a plea bargain is struck with the defendant and their attorney. However, it is also the duty of the prosecutor to charge all applicable charges so long as probable cause exists on each charge. It is their responsibility to prove to a judge or jury guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They also act as agent of the jurisdiction that which they have been appointed to prosecute on behalf, which obviously inherits tremendous responsibility to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system as well as the jurisdiction that which they serve. In my personal experience, District Attorneys and Assistant District Attorney's will often take in to consideration what the arresting officer or agency feels. This is important as they are normally the ones who collect evidence and see the case from start to finish. So to answer the final question, no, I do not feel that prosecutors are given too much discretion as often times they will consult multiple relevant entities for their opinions before striking a plea agreement. LSTD400 | Lesson 6: Court Proceedings. Retrieved 10 February 2020, from https://apus.brightspace.com/shared/elf/lstd400/le...Strutin, K. (2013, May 19). Negotiating Justice: The New Constitutional Spectrum of Plea Bargaining. Retrieved from https://llrx.com/2013/05/negotiating-justice-the-n... Responses: Part (2) pertaining MayoCole,1) If you were the defense attorney representing Mayo would you try to negotiate a plea agreement on his behalf or go to trial? Week one we were asked to look at possible crimes Mayo could be charged with. Week two and on we discovered there are enough general facts and evidence in this scenario to justify Mayo’s arrest. As the defense attorney, I would look to see if the arrest was lawful to begin with. A lawful arrest has three specific elements. An officer must have: 1) probable cause a crime has been committed; 2) an officer must have legal authority to make an arrest; and 3) an officer must have lawful access to the suspect (Bandiero, 2019). I would look at every element and factor within this scenario to establish a foundation for the best defense I could offer my client. Looking at all the facts, I would advise Mayo to consider a possible plea deal. My client did kill Scowen, there is no questioning that. Determining if the killing was justified would be the next question. Unfortunately the facts, evidence, confessions and provided statements point to an unjustified and reckless killing. My client's own statement says he shot Scowen because he would not stop yelling or waving the beer bottle around. There is not enough evidence for me to show Scowen was an active threat. Under 18-1-704 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, a person can use physical force against another person to defend themselves or a third person from what the person believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person. The person using physical force for self-defense may use a degree of force he reasonably believes to be necessary. Deadly physical force can only be used if a lesser degree of force is inadequate, the person has a reasonable ground to believe they or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or receiving serious bodily injury (Colorado Peace Officers Handbook , 2019). Shouting verbal threats without proving an active threat is not enough to justify deadly force. This plea deal would depend on what charge my client would have to plead guilty to. If the prosecution was pursuing murder charges and would not budge, I would have to show the jury my clients actions did not meet the elements of murder and hope for a not-guilty verdict. This would be a gamble.2) The prosecutor is given a lot of discretion in the criminal court process. If you were the prosecutor would you try to negotiate a plea agreement or go to trial? Discuss why and make sure to support your position. Also, discuss the pros and cons to each. As the prosecutor for this case, I would look at all facts and evidence gathered. With all the facts provided in this case, I would not charge first degree murder. First degree murder in Colorado requires would reqire deliberation and intent to kill after said deliberation. There are other “recipes” for first degree murder which would not apply. Based on the facts, I would pursue 18-3-103 second degree murder which is when a person knowingly causes the death of another. All evidence points to Mayo knowingly causing the death of Scowen. I do not believe 18-3-104 manslaughter which is when a person recklessly causes the death of another or 18-3-105 criminally negligent homicide which is when a person causes the death of another person by conduct amounting to criminal negligence would be appropriate (Colorado Peace Officers Handbook, 2019). Unless more information came out, I do not think I would seek a plea agreement. I believe there is enough evidence to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. If more info came out, then maybe a plea deal involving manslaughter would be appropriate or a dismissal based on self-defense. While I do not believe a plea deal is appropriate for this scenario, plea deal can prove to be beneficial. Take driving under the influence for example. Driving under the influence is both one of the hardest crimes and easiest crimes to convict. It all depends on how thorough the investigation is and what evidence is provided. Depending on the evidence, the defense can show their client was not exhibiting signs of intoxication to warrant driving under the influence but more driving while ability impaired. Driving while ability impaired means impaired to the slightest degree while driving under the influence means a person is incapable of exercising clear judgment, sufficient physical control or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle. In some cases, the prosecution will offer what's called a “wet reckless”. This means the defendant would plead guilty to the DUI but receive a punishment similar to reckless driving along with some sort of alcohol or substance education classes. This is great for those who just made a bad mistake and also ensures a punishment is dealt out. Plea deals do have some cons as they can be seen as not giving a just punishment and can be viewed as the prosecution just trying to avoid court. A successful jury trial depends on facts and evidence. Going in half-cocked will most likely result in an unsuccessful conviction. To have a successful jury trial, there must be enough evidence and facts to prevent the defense from muddying the waters.ReferencesBandiero, A. (2019). Search & Seizure Survival Guide: A Field Guide For Law Enforcement. Spokane, WA: Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, LLC.Christopher:If I was the defense attorney representing Mayo I would most definitely search for an opportunity to negotiate a plea agreement on his behalf. I believe this would be the best course of action because Mayo does not have grounds for a strong defense. Even though the witness statements do not fully match up, the statements taken by the police, the police officer’s narrative of what he saw, as well as the description of the scene taken in my the police upon arrival is seemingly enough to support an over reaction to unreasonable fear on the part of Mayo. As his attorney, and based on the listed information above, I would believe that the best course of action would be to advise Mayo to consider a full voluntary confession echoing what he was telling the police officer first on the scene in exchange for a plea bargain. The specific plea deal I would try to get for Mayo would be a compliment of what he would want along with what the prosecution might offer. On the other hand, if I was the prosecutor I would not try to negotiate a plea deal with Mayo’s defense because I wouldn’t feel that I would need to. I feel that the case the prosecutor’s office has is very strong and would not need to make a deal to offer a lesser punishment for a confession from Mayo. If Mayo’s utterances are found to be admissible on court I would almost have a usable confession anyway. That being said, I am also aware that there are hidden politics in the prosecutor’s office that may require a prosecutor to offer a deal to save on taxpayer time and money to avoid a drawn out court battle. With these practices aside, I would not move to support a plea deal with Mayo to set an example that choosing to end the life of another in self defense comes with consequences if poor judgment is involved. There did not appear to be an immediacy to resort to a gun with the information provided. Using good communication skills to cool the situation or simply leaving the area to escape the threat would have been both seemingly reasonable and possible. In discussing the pros and cons of a plea bargain, it will be discussed in the context of the case with Scowen and Mayo. As mentioned earlier the pros of a plea bargain would save taxpayers time and money, it would give a swift resolution to the victims family, would close an open case quickly as a win for the police and the prosecutor’s office. Lastly, Mayo would likely end up with a criminal record if he enters into a plea that will stay with him for life. The cons of a plea deal with Mayo would be that the prosecutor would likely have to agree to a lesser punishment in exchange for a closed case. This has a great potential to re-victimize the family that has sustained loss because they would have to see the offender get off with a less substantial punishment. The second con would be that a plea deal sends a weak message to those that would consider such an action or promote an expectation of a plea deal for any future transgressions. Finally, plea deals have to be approved by the courts, after all the effort on the part of the prosecutor to support a plea deal it could end up being rejected by the courts.It would seem that plea deals should not be used as a means for prosecutors to do less work but instead a tool to secure a conviction when absolutely necessary. Michael,If Mayo was my client and I was defending him I would not seek a plea agreement. I would argue that Mayo was defending himself and that it was a justifiable homicide. I would take the case to trial and prove that he was defending himself from imminent bodily harm from Scowen. As for the Dietz testimony I would argue that she was under the influence of alcohol and her statements contradict with that of Joe.If I were prosecuting the case, I would offer a plea deal. The officer’s report and Mayo’s confession conflict with one another and I think this is the best route for the prosecution to take. If the plea deal is not accepted, I would take the case to trial since the testimony of Dietz claimed that he was merely going to bust up the place with the beer bottle. Joe’s testimony also changed in regard to his whereabouts on that night. I think the pros of a plea deal would not tie up the system and we would get a guilty plea. If we go to trial, we might lose the cases because the jury might find that Mayo was defending himself and render a not guilty verdict.